But Ms. Olen is putting the cart before the horse. She is saying “I’m not haaaaapy being trapped in marriage” before she gets married. This ruins the whole thing:

It isn’t conventional wisdom, but in many ways it seems easier to raise a kid alone. Being a single parent by choice would mean not having to deal with another person’s sets of demands or expectations of what child-rearing means. I wouldn’t burden a child with the emotional baggage of divorce or the highs and lows of an unhappy relationship. It would just be the two of us and a supporting cast of extended family.

Yes, yes, yes! Of course you are right Ms. Olen. Having to answer to a husband is an abomination, something no woman (let alone mother) should have to suffer, but this is what divorce is for. Those of us who are traditional stand on ceremony, and marrying first and then kicking the father out later with the full moral backing of the church and state is how this must be done. Don’t worry if this makes some people angry, we Traditional Christians will marginalize anyone who takes issue with this.

But please, since we are going to carry your water, throw us a bone! Please, please, pretend you aren’t actually doing exactly what you want to do when you become an unwed mother. Please pretend that as a woman you have no moral agency, and that someone else with a Y chromosome must be to blame. You don’t have to make it convincing, we’ll buy whatever you say and pass it on as if it was the truth.

210 Responses to Stanton’s Heroes

Well, gee, not every woman is going to be so traditionalist as to allow the sperm donor to live with her and her children. I predict that some number of traditionalist conservative Defenders of Marriage will take the time to object to this – because it allows them to pretend to value men, while tiptoeing around the minefield of divorce theft.

Odds are, Ms. Owen’s parents are divorced, and she has painful memories of that. Yet another way in which men’s-fault divorce frays the social fabric. Of course, as Ms. Duffy informed us, it’s nothing to get angry about.

How selfish, to pre-emptively deprive her own child of a father, for the sake of her own convenience. I wish I could say that it is at least slightly more honorable than ripping off a man along the way, but it isn’t.

Amazing too that she counts on “friends and family” to provide her with free child care. And some unnamed man to act as father “figure.” In my experience, lots of folks want to baby sit when the child is young and cute and just sleeps and wakes up every once in a while says “goo goo.” But not so many are interested in being unpaid child care workers for screaming, hyperactive toddlers, snotty, rebellious middle schoolers, or sullen teenagers. And, yeah, there MIGHT be some guy out there (a family member or friend) willing to do some of the work of a father (never mind how ineffective or insufficient that will be as a substitute for a real father), with none of the benefits, but to simply count on that happening? And to plan in advance to take advantage of all these people, simply because she is too selfish and controlling to deal with a real father? Unbelievable.

As some of the commenters mentioned, she seems to have a hang up about men. She fears them. Her real father’s beard scared her! When he first showed up, she thought he was some kind of ax murderer, based on nothing more, that I can see, than that he was a man. And she is looking for a child to fill that hole in her life. The child will be the substitute lover. They will be “a team,” they will be “friends.” And so on. Parent-child relationship trainwork ahead! A woman who, in advance, sees herself as being unable to compromise and deal with the views of another person is, by definition, not going to be a good mother. What does she thiink parenting entails? What happens when her 12 year old daughter or son doesn’t want her as a “friend.” What happens when, as a teen approaching adulthood, he or she has ideas of his or her own, which are in conflict with hers? What will she do then?

And she is pretty glib about the economics of the situation too. Yeah, she may have a good job now, and is able to work from home. But if the last few decades have taught us anything, it is that no job has any real long term security anymore. What happens if she loses her job? Or is forced to work at an office? What happens if she gets seriously injurred or sick? With two parents, both of whom have the responsibility to take care of the child, and each other, there is some breathing room. Some possibility of the healthier or more employable spouse picking up the slack. But she will have none of that. Instead, she will try to fall back on her conscripted family members and friends. And, if that fails, the State. Then she will be just the same as the “bad” single mothers she tries to distinguish herself from.

Without the internet, only tens of people would know how damaged this woman is. With the internet, thousands will read her puerile scribblings and have nothing but contempt for her. And based on what she writes, I have to think that thousands having contempt for her is a good thing.

I used to live next door to a woman who had two children by two different fathers and who told me that she had always wanted children but never wanted to have a husband. She wasn’t bad looking either, yet I wonder what a woman would say were I to have two children and when casually asked about my ‘wife’ I had replied that I had always wanted children but not a wife so I had used a surrogate mother.

I may add that at one point I spoke to her strongly as she was going out dancing leaving the children alone in the evenings, when I explained that that really was not acceptable with the veiled threat that if she continued like that I would have to report the matter – in the best interests of the children, of course. Her boy – as so often – seemed to be somewhat unhappy and out of control.

Any woman who willfully makes the choice to be a single mom on purpose is unfathomably toxic! With the exception of the 1%’s like me who did not choose this lifestyle, the rest are just plain stupid or weak and have been seduced by ridiculous “divorce porn” and other unrealistic so-called standards touted that we are all assaulted by every single day, not to mention the ones “tricked” into riding the carousel.

With the exception of the 1%’s like me who did not choose this lifestyle

I don’t know your story, so forgive me if perhaps your husband died in battle or something, but the problem with this assertion is that you must realise that you made the choices that led to where you are and take responsibility for your part in it.

Mom raised me in a home owned by her sister and presided over by their mother, my “Grammy,” who in retrospect did the “heavy lifting” of raising me and Dear Auntie’s son. Mom & I were kicked out when I was old enough to get a job, and we got an apartment together (and as soon as I could, I paid the rent). I set aside my own chance at marriage-and-children for Mom’s sake, and in today’s “His Fault” environment I see that I danced through enfilading machine-gun fire without getting hit.

Mom told me on her deathbed that the fellow who she’d married for eleven years, the guy whose name was on my birth certificate, was not my biological father. She gave me the name of her sperm-donor … but I chose not to follow that up. I met her ex-husband several times over the course of my lifetime, and he was a man I could have been proud of as a father – a “Doc,” a Navy Corpsman attached to a USMC platoon in the Pacific side of World War II. (If I’d been a couple of years older, so that I was of draft age at the appropriate time in history, I might have gotten my arse shot off in Vietnam, a Doc in my own turn with a platoon of Marines under my care, following in his muddy footsteps.)

I know all too damn ultimately well how important a Dad is to his kids, because I missed out on having a Dad in my life.I know I would have tried to be a good Dad, to be the Dad I wanted for myself; and I would have been blind-sided, shattered, utterly destroyed, when my wife turned me out of house and home and family and Dad-ship because she had a Bad Boy boyfriend. Surely she would have played all the changes, from “I’m afraid of him” to “he touched my little girl’s genitals” (with a warm wet washcloth, changing her Pampers) to … anything it might take to get a crooked Judge to slam the gavel on my nuts. But I trust today’s women as far as I could throw a fit.

– Why would any men want to be in a relationship with a single mother that isn’t going to advance to the point where they’re seen as a disciplinary figure to the child ?

– Support Network ? having to support someone in a situation that’s happened out of the blue is one thing, but supporting someone in a situation that has planned is another.
She assumes this “network” is going to plan their lives around the child as she has.

– She doesn’t what to deal another person’s sets of demands or expectations of what child-rearing means ? does she think her grandmother never offered her knowledge on parenting to her mother ?
Is her mother (grandma) gonna have any say in how she raises her child ?

CL, my husband was convicted of “Attempted Capital Murder”. Yes, I was the target. Guess we (the kids and I) didn’t fit into his plans with his new girlfriend. (?) They had already had their second child together and I stupidly thought we got along well. I have enough sense to not use his actions against all men. I commented more on the “restaurant” post a few days ago.

I agree that the vast majority of women who are single moms made some decision that put them voluntarily in that category. I am just saying that anyone who purposely chooses this is nuts. Plain and simple. I did not choose to have this lifestyle, it was chosen for me, and my choice to marry someone who turned out to be bat-sh^t crazy after a DECADE is held against me? Hmmm, pretty high standards to meet.

So, yeah, I was fooled by an honest to God sociopath, blame me all you want. I can take it, just realize that I support the views expressed here as my bottom line.

Many in the manosphere point out that women are sexually attracted to sociopaths. Some might argue that since you chose your sociopath husband, you are therefore to blame for his attempt to murder you–you should have known better than to associate with him in the first place. Dalrock sort of mentioned this in this post, in reason #6, though I’m not sure whether or not he’d make an exception for you…sociopaths are known for being extraordinarily good at deceiving people (deceit is a characteristic of sociopathy, IIRC), so maybe he might tell you that you were legitimately fooled. Maybe not, though. I won’t presume to speak for our host, so I’ll simply say that according to many, the ONLY situation in which a woman is not to blame for single motherhood is when the father died.

(And even that is debatable–I wonder if someone might argue that “the woman should have known better than to marry a soldier/policeman/firefighter/other dangerous profession” when talking to a widow).

Seriously, he was a pretty solid guy for the first five years or so. Then WE made the decision that it would be a financial benefit to accept an overseas contract. He was “looked” up by his high school gf. He apparently got the tingles, I did not. I was home getting barfed on and dealing with accountants, renters of our properties, etc.

My calls were about, hey, this is what needs to be done, here is our financial status…HERS were, oh daddy…I want you to do this to me and buy me some sexy lingerie. Did I screw up and allow this to happen? Sure. Just like Men think are blindsided by getting their walking papers. I willingly accept that I screwed up, it just wasn’t a case of “getting tingles” for a criminal, though I understand why many of you would point that out. Please, feel free to call me out for not being a sex kitten all the time, but when you get 30 minutes a week on a sat phone and have businesses/property in addition to kids that learned to walk/had Dr. appointment, etc. that leaves little time for “oh, daddy…I wish you were here to…me”

Thankfully, I have the ability to care for my kids on my own. I didn’t steal fatherhood from anyone and I am not living off of a person I rejected because my hamster told me to. While I accept and can overcome the hardships of my unique personal situation, I am extremely resentful of being tossed into the category of “single” moms who did it to themselves on purpose by getting knocked up and expecting the child support or government to keep them afloat.

I see nothing surprising about this behavior. As it has been noted many times before, this is the stage of civilization when it collapses. It has happen numerous times and was firstly recorded in ancient Sumer.
We should look events from this perspective.

This is issue of dad versus cad/thug society. Women incline to cad/thug because it assures that only several men have reproductive success. In a dad society man cannot bring up many kids of multiple women even if he wanted – polygyny and promiscuity is severly limited.

Feminism is an attempt to create cad/thug society on hard work of dads.

Would it surprise anyone here if we start to see an increase in targeted pregnancies where some single career woman pre-selects some guy and gets pregnant on purpose just to secure the child support? I’m not talking about the single moms who chase athletes or are just plain stupid. I’m talking about career women with good jobs who think like this woman. So she might go look for some beta guy who has managed to build a business or a solid career. A guy not too lucky with the ladies. Get pregnant and dump him without letting him know about the pregnancy. Come back six months after the baby is born and sue for child support. Why would she do this? Let’s count the reasons.

She gets guaranteed child support preset by the state from a guy making good money
She pretty much guarantees that she will maintain custody
She can deny visitation for any reason she wants
If he tries to fight in court for anything, accuse him of domestic violence

So maybe we’ll see an article by Kate Bolin or her younger clone talking about how she put her plan in place to secure her very own pregnancy from some unsuspecting high earning good looking beta. She can talk about how icky the sex was with a beta schlub. How she targeted the guy. How she figured out his income so she could calculate her child support. How she “planned” it all. And how much the child support mandated by the state helps pay for private school or trips to Europe. Then wrap up the article by describing how empowered she feels.

It was not her choice to be alone, but she did make a conscious decision not to remarry while I was still a kid

BULLSHIT

That is the narrative they all concoct and its maddening. How many times have you heard the word divorce animated to sentience? “Divorce runs rampant in church”….like that. Her mom divorced her dad, then said she had no choice….any one wanna take that bet?

The presumption of the extended support system as an entitlement may actually be valid, because her choice when combined with serial monogamy and the requisite single mothers from that creates a young mommy club in every city.

@JHJ
“”Anybody who actually takes monotheistic religion seriously these days should be a Moslem.””
———-
Why so many people have this fetish to add these remarks is beyond me, I guess they make the writer feel bigger, back when I was an atheist (and my point here is not the issue of arguing about God, its about attitude) I had a million of these zingers, and they made me feel bigger too.

So maybe we’ll see an article by Kate Bolin or her younger clone talking about how she put her plan in place to secure her very own pregnancy from some unsuspecting high earning good looking beta. She can talk about how icky the sex was with a beta schlub. How she targeted the guy. How she figured out his income so she could calculate her child support. How she “planned” it all. And how much the child support mandated by the state helps pay for private school or trips to Europe. Then wrap up the article by describing how empowered she feels.

I think we already see this to a degree, with Liz Jone’s recent “confession” in the Daily Mail coming to mind. The interesting thing is women could be fully out in the open about this and the system would still treat them like some wounded little bird preyed upon by the nasty man who tricked her into sex and then dumped her. Legally, a woman could make her plans to do such a thing front page news, and then follow up with a piece once pregnant reminding everyone that she did what she said she would do. She could even admit to using deliberate deceit by falsely claiming she no longer had a uterus due to some medical issue, etc. She could even go further and steal the sperm out of a used condom to impregnate herself. None of this would matter, and the system would still make the man payout.

“I think we already see this to a degree, with Liz Jone’s recent “confession” in the Daily Mail coming to mind.”

Oh, yeah. Almost 30 years ago, one of my gal-pals and I jokingly came up with a mercenary “plot” that would ensure our financial well being: One at a time we would each marry some wealthy schmuck. Then the other would then engage the schmuck in an affair so the first could divorce him – and we’d split the alimony and go on to live the high life “unencumbered.” How naive we were, not to consider getting pregnant and adding child support to the alimony! (It never occurred to us that children could provide for us, rather that the other way around.) To a couple of moral, responsible college girls, this was of course a shockingly depraved joke. Fast forward a generation to a population severely lacking in moral, responsible girls. It’s inevitable.

Oh, yeah. Almost 30 years ago, one of my gal-pals and I jokingly came up with a mercenary “plot” that would ensure our financial well being: One at a time we would each marry some wealthy schmuck. Then the other would then engage the schmuck in an affair so the first could divorce him – and we’d split the alimony and go on to live the high life “unencumbered.”

I know it was only a joke for two silly young girls and it was not meant to be taken seriously. But the fact that women make jokes like that speaks volumes about cruel women’s attitude to men in America.

Men have been completely dehumanized in America and women don’t consider them as human beings anymore but as a objects to use and discard as it suits them.

Imagine two boys making a joke like that:

“Almost 30 years ago, one of my pals and I jokingly came up with a mercenary “plot” that would ensure my sexual access to women. One at a time I would become girlfriend of a silly girl and enjoy their sex for years making her promises of marriage. Then, we would marry and I would get her pregnant. Then my pal would seduce her and I will file for divorce on the grounds of unfaithfulness. Then we will repeat the process with another silly girl. When the justice tries to get us for child support, we will flee and repeat the process in another country”

It was only a joke, right? So why am I not seeing women laughing out loud?

when a woman is trusted to make a decision by herself, she usually does something like this. find a way to get around the law (or use the law to violate the basic codes of ethics and morality) and then spin the hamster wheel until their repugnant action becomes righteous. they’re like adult babies, when daddy isn’t around they are busy knocking over the fridge to get to the cookie jar.

imnobody,
Exactly. If two “nice” girls can look at the mechanics of our system and easily see a way to abuse it, what are the not-so-nice girls thinking? People who’ve been raised with NO accountability, have severely handicapped consciences; they behave like psychopaths who have no consciences. This is the modern Western woman, thanks to feminism.
It’s frightening. Even more frightening is the fact that most men don’t recognize it for what it is. They don’t realize that women are playing by a whole different set of rules. Predatory women used to be the minority. Not any more.

Please. I suppose it is still possible somehow to be a Christian privately, but there is no more Christian congress available. Nowhere. Every single church, temple, sect or Bible society that purports to be Christian is in fact just feminist welfare liberalism with a smattering of scriptural justification. You might as well go to North Korea for a crash course in capitalism as to a Church for Christianity. Maaaaybe, possibly, there’s still some holding out amongst some Mormon fringes, which is why they get all the hate directed their way by the establishment. But Mormons are hardly Christian to begin with anyway.

Now, whatever you can say about Islam, you will never find any single Moslem who thinks cultural marxism, feminism, the welfare state, diversity or any other politically correct buggaboo that gets peddled in churches comes before the word of Allah, no matter how happy they are to exploit all this things as weapons against western civilization. There are no EPL divorcees in Mosques… Because Moslems still actually take their faith seriously, which there is no indication whatsoever any Christians do.

As much as it pains me to agree with you, I have to, you are correct!
The Christian church is so watered down with “I’m ok-you’re ok” , feel good hokus pokus, that the hell-fire-and-brimstone that the modern world so desperately needs is shunned from polite church society. The Christian church wonders why there is a falling off in church attendance/participation and a flocking to paganism, atheism, wiccan etc…well at least they are serious about their theology.

Oh, yeah. Almost 30 years ago, one of my gal-pals and I jokingly came up with a mercenary “plot” that would ensure our financial well being: One at a time we would each marry some wealthy schmuck. Then the other would then engage the schmuck in an affair so the first could divorce him …

I find your youthful assumption that you would need a reason to divorce the man and steal his money kind of charming. Now the plan is just:

1.) Marry
2.) Get “unhaaaaaaaapy”
3.) Divorce
4.) Profit

The man has fuck-all to say about anything after (1.), so all you need to do is find a high-earning, dumb one. And that’s not too hard. Just look for self-identified feminist sons of single moms in legal, medical, or (if you must) engineering programs.

When consequences are real. most women can make responsible choices as a matter of self preservation.

Absolutely. The way the women go about getting to those responsible choices may look different (on average) than the way men approach the same question, but women very much can and do make responsible choices when there are adverse consequences to not doing so.

Reminds me why this pithy little model I read about some time ago is so important.
This model applies for an optimum fully engage (90% of eligible males married) society.

The total aggregate value of production of males in a society is 1.8* times the total aggregate value of male consumption. The total aggregate value of female production is 0.6* times the total aggregate value of female consumption. Excess male production is transferred to females, dependencies and future consumption.

Any retraction of male production (investment in a society) will invariably result in stored wealth and future wealth being consumed up to a point of total depletion which will result in a massive drop of living standards.

The article in Slate is a sign of the times. There’s been a series of similar articles in the press lately, and the general mood is one of women delaying marriage and not being interested at all in male partnership of any kind, for various reasons.

“Modern marriage economics have catapulted women into the role of breadwinners in many households, and as more women have entered the workforce, financial freedom has meant independence in other spheres, as well. Women now have the ability to choose a mate for reasons other than his pocketbook; many are in fact choosing to reject having a mate at all. Where this leaves men? Well, as women’s independence has increased, it seems, romantic opportunity for men has suffered the opposite fate.”

The primary issue here is that women have become financially independent. Therefore, the incentives to get partnered with a male have lessened substantially, because “the pocketbook” used to be the central reason for women settling down with men.

This will have profound implications for dating markets and the place of men in society.

@JHJ
“Please. I suppose it is still possible somehow to be a Christian privately, but there is no more Christian congress available. Nowhere. Every single church, temple, sect or Bible society that purports to be Christian is in fact just feminist welfare liberalism with a smattering of scriptural justification”

Wanting to have children is a primal force of nature. A lot of women know that their chances of finding a man who meets their 100 point checklist to settle down with are pretty slim so at some point they need to take matters into their own hands. And if the hope of ever marrying is so forlorn, then all the more reason to abandon the pretense of the need for marriage. In these situations, any excuse will do. Everything from “the condom broke” to “he said he loved me” can be used for the occasional embarrassing brush with those of us bothered with committing to our spouses. In the end it really does not matter any way. They were going to have a child irrespective of how it affected everyone else and there is nothing we can do about it.

One reason access to birth control / abortion is such a touchy topic with feminists is that they fully understand the amount of power it gives them. They also understand that it is their one chip in the big game. While I am all for allowing women access to birth control I think it is high time men start to agitate for their own birth control options. Right now we can either wear a haz-mat –hat or get snipped. The good news is that we are at most one to two decades away from several safe effective reversible undetectable forms of birth control for men (applause). But don’t expect the feminists to celebrate. In fact, expect a nasty scorched earth fight because it will threaten the very core of their power. If I can make a prediction, the first men to use it will be the ones with resources. Women will still not have trouble getting knocked up but the odds of bagging an alpha will shrink considerably and since that is what hypergamy is all about it will have a major impact on their behavior. The motto for the next decade needs to be, “The Norplant comes out after the Pre-Nup is signed.”

Also, as a side note, has anyone else noticed that almost nothing ever gets mentioned in the press about a lack of male birth control options? Feminist after feminist was trotted out about the recent Church funded birth control dust up to complain about the “harm” that will be created if “women’s health care” is not fully funded but nary a mention about the fact that men are the ones who are really getting stiffed. When I hear women complain that their insurance does not cover women’s birth control options I gently point out that it really does not cover men’s either. That’s because there arn’t any.

An Israeli company thats working on a non hormonal birth control pill for Men, a while ago estimated that their pill will be ready by 2015. Rmaxd (I think?) commented recently thats its already almost comleted phase 1 clinical trials. I hear that a herbal bcp for Men is coming on the market this year in Indonesia based on a Indigenous plant that has well know contraceptive effects on Men.

“I am extremely resentful of being tossed into the category of “single” moms who did it to themselves on purpose by getting knocked up and expecting the child support or government to keep them afloat.”

Why self-identify? If this doesn’t apply to you don’t let it bother you. If you are suggesting that we not point out all of the ridiculous single mother because you happened to be one then maybe you do in fact share dome dark triad traits with your former spouse. Most single mothers choose to be that way, if you didn’t you are the exception, why try to make yourself the rule?

@Will
The non hormonal birth control pill for men should be a major focus for men. Thr conversation we have been having with women over the last few years has shown that women do not care. One way to get around natural sexual desire of men was the MGTOW concept of avoidance. In Japan they have the “Grasseaters” and here we have the video gamers “peter pans” A man pill will protect a young man even a bluepill man from his natural emotional desires until feminism jades him enough to get to the MGTOW stage.
MRA’s are men that have manned up. Most of the feminist shit talk about MRA’s is just that. Many MRA’s are men that have married ,fathered and worked their blue pill asses off to be punished for their efforts. Dalrock is one of the few men in a sound healthy relationship that is thoughtful enough to see what is going on. A redpiller with out the trauma that is normally the case.

I think a simple truth applies here. If you want someone to take risk and do the ‘right thing’ you have to encourage them and make sure the rewards are worth the risk. If you want to stop someone from doing the ‘wrong thing’ you shame them until they understand that the rewards for stopping their actions exceeds the reason they continue to do the ‘wrong thing’. Quite simple really.

The problem with Christianity and the government is they have corrupted the system and now do the exact opposite. They shame someone into doing the ‘right thing’ which does not encourage the person at all but merely pushes them to stop trying, which is exactly why shaming works with bad behaviour, it stops the person from doing it.

And singlemotherhood is bad, it creates criminals and sociopaths and a declining society. Anyone who believes that a single mom can raise a proper son or daughter is beyond bonkers.

I note the UK goverment estimate that the number of unmarried cohabiting couples under the age of 40 will overtake married cohabiting couples in 2014. So perhaps the government is waiting until then to introduce De-facto Marriage lesgislation as a greater case will be able to be made for doing so.

The problem with Christianity and the government is they have corrupted the system and now do the exact opposite.

————————————————————————–
So, its Christianity and governments fault, they are the origin of the problem by proactively corrupting, what? What system? Those are the systems, and its they who have been corrupted. Oh dont misunderstand, they are happily skipping along as they allow it, even comply…..even got to encourage it, but your statement is not accurate

The system corrupted was the family. The basis for society. Either the government and Christianity corrupted it or they are corrupted themselves. Nitpick all you want, Christianity is not what it used to be and goes as far as encouraging people to act wholly against the word of the Bible.

The government goes as far was making it law so they are actively involved in the corruption. So yea, it is the government’s fault to a large extent.

Since you obviously know more than me, please feel happy to correct my statement and make it correct.

Empath, allow me to explain that differently. The first paragraph of my post deals with any system, if you want to make it work you have to provide incentive and encouragement to get people to risk themselves to be a part of it.

The second part, on which you base your question, is dealing with the current ‘family’ and single motherhood. The family system of one mother and one father has most definitely been corrupted, whether actively by the Church or not is debatable, but certainly by government with respect to laws, divorce courts and welfare.

Christianity and the government both try to fix the problem by shaming men into doing what they think is right. It will not work and cannot work. If you want men to be a part of the system you have to encourage them and provide enough reward for them to partake.

The whole social dynamic will change with a male pill. lets say 20 to 30 percent of women that want children cannot due to no male cooperation. The hysteria from that will be one of epic size. The first thing that will happen is a double down on the misandry. Done to further appease women. More types of contact with women will result in wealth transfers to women. The tipping point will come when state budgets are balanced for some reason. Out of wedlock birth rate starts to go down. The hard core feminist will demand a ban on the male pill as a violation of women reproductive rights. CS laws will be challenged as cuckolding is brought to light as more men on BC are duped fathers. (upto 30% births are that now).
Think of the market for the pill. Young men will be able to complete college and graduate. Proffessional atheletes will be able to start their careers without a legal noose. most importantly MRA issue about fatherhood and child birth will come to the forefront. One day with out fan fare a man will have a child and the society and government by law will appreciate the guy. (that guy hasn’t been born yet) The meme will be treat a man right and you can be a mother. Involutary childless spinsterhood restores politeness

This is going to hard for you christians but take a while to think about it. A amle birth control pill in the hands of the PUA,player,and the beta chump will restore the christian church by default. ( i would love to hear the conversation between a staton’s hero in the making and the good pussy worshipping preacher….. “I deperately want to prove to god my heroic worth through motherhood father. I have been with nearly 60 men and have yet to be blessed with child. Will you pray for me and introduce me to your oldest son”.)
Don’t let up on em Dalrock.

I was reading Dalrock’s latest “Stanton’s Heroes” and went from there to Flirty Introvert and from there to Darwin Catholic.

The response to Game and the Manosphere at Flirty and Darwin seems to be:

The manosphere is bitter and angry! How come you guys are so mad!? We Catholics are for marriage and against divorce, so you can’t come here and blame us for how terrible and messed up things are! Ain’t nobody who’s more against divorce than we are! I mean, we’ve got lots of sayings and press releases and sermons and conferences and encyclicals and pronouncements where we talk about how bad divorce is and stuff!”

“And you guys are immoral because you hang out with pickup artists and nihilists! And you MGTOWs need to man up and start contributing to society again!”

“All a slut has to do to become fit for marriage is repent, and she’s good to go to the altar with a nice guy!”

“Game is toxic, and disrespectful to women! It can’t work! Game is disrespectful to wives!”

deti, there’s not much a man can say to someone who refuses to listen. Just as there is not much one can teach to someone who flat out refuses to learn. The tradcon bloggers exhibit one or both of those properties.

Another thing that stands out to me from these various tradcon bloggers: they don’t have much, or any, sympathy for men whose lives are ruined by the divorce industry. I can’t really tell why that is.

Add all the above together, and once again it can be seen how similar tradcons and feminists are in they way they regard men.

The reason a male birth control pill will have such an impact is not because it will prevent women from becoming pregnant whenever they want. The reason is that it will prevent women from choosing with whom they will become pregnant with.

The men who will most likely to use a MBCP will be the ones with the most to lose. Loosely translated, these are men who are at the apex of the sexual food chain who have a family, other children, jobs, fame, assets, and a future can now be protected from financial predators that ruthlessly use sex to get what they are after. It will force women to invest more energy into finding and keeping a desirable partner and up the risk of fruitlessly chasing an alpha in the attempt to hit a genetic home run. Men in effect will be perusing a hypergamic strategy of their own and will no longer be burdened with a mistake after a night of wild sex (STDs aside).

This alone will not change the whole game but combined with DNA testing it could go a very long way balancing the power between the sexes.

Not entirely, no. I am not a mind reader, and the current crop of trad con bloggers is remarkable in lack of ability to expound on their positions beyond basic “we oppose divorce, and sin”.

They think the value of a man’s life is vastly lower than a woman’s.

Certainly that is in evidence for some tradcons. However, some other trad cons are willing to pay at least lip service to men who are in the divorce machine. Perhaps because they do not wish to see a useful domestic animal wasted.

But I can’t read minds, so I really don’t know why these tradcon bloggers have little to no sympathy for men being rendered to bits by the divorce industry. However, it is clear that they do not.

I believe the tradcon refusal to show any sympathy towards men destroyed by divorce comes from the churchianity belief of every failed marriage and failure in a marriage is the man’s fault. I have been in numerous churches where men are constantly told to be more “attentive” to their wife’s feelings and more sensitive/ less macho… basically check your masculinity at the door and submit to your wives. Even churches that do call women out on occasion still hold the belief that since the man is supposed to be the leader of the household every flaw and fault rests with the man and the man alone. The irony is, since the husbands are constantly trying to be “sensitive and respectful” (submissive) to the wives, they can’t and aren’t usually the leaders of their households.

No Bwana Simba, it’s not because of defective reasoning about moral responsibility that causes the behavior. These older lack sympathy and even have vindictiveness for men victimized for women, because they are bitter frustrated slaves to women.

@ Prof. Woland
We need more thought and motivation in the manospere on Male Birth Control Pill technology for men. The stuff average men have discussed and developed over the last few years on female psychology and government is extraordinary. As a guy that has spent his entire adult life as a maintenance tech,mechanic and repair man on everything from robots, forklifts, airplanes to cars and at this point I’m done trouble shooting. I’m at the point of making repairs on society. The nice way is to discuss openly as Dalrock is doing the destuctive behavior of women and the laws used to mask it and enable it.( laws of misandry) The problem I see with that is men are too thoughtful kind and logical and project that as normal onto women. I tease Dalrock about at times when he will come to a point that will be a good arguement for MGTOW.
I would love to see an article on the male pill and discussed in the manosphere on the effects on society from teen age boys, athletes, college men,professionals and the christian church. And for the invisible masses of average beta men like myself. You hinted on what would happen and it will be fast as hell. A male pill comes out and who ever has it will be super rich over night it will start as a trickle and become a normal male staple as a gun. When that happens the demographic to watch is the carousel riders 28-36, that is going to be something.

In looking again at Darwin Catholic and at FlirtyINtrovert, and the response to Dalrock’s response to Duffy’s piece, I think we’ll see the following memes play out from the tradcons:

1. The manosphere is full of bitter and angry men.

2. Because of their bitterness and anger, these men are dangerous and violent, and therefore must be controlled (and punished if necessary).

3. These men are immoral and stand athwart conventional Judeo-Christian morality because they associate and identify ideologically with the Game/pickup artist sect of the manosphere.

4. Game is immoral, even in the marriage context, because it is grounded in fraud, deceit and manipulation of women.

5. Assuming it is true that Game allows men to exploit women’s psychological, sexual and sociobiological composition to ultimately manipulate them into sex (whether married or not), it proves that men are less moral than women, and that women occupy a higher moral plane than men. Women are pure. Men are base.

6. Men are much more to blame for the current SMP mess than women. Even though women were freed from prior legal, social and medical/risk of pregnancy constraints to have sex with whomever they wanted, men are more to blame because they took advantage of it. Men should have restrained themselves from the sexual smorgasbord the women put on offer.

7. Men who aren’t having sex should not be complaining about it. Christian single men are supposed to be chaste. Period, Full stop. Never mind that they see women — including the women in Church — doing literally whatever they want with whomever they want.

8. Christian single women are supposed to be chaste too, but if they are not, it is ultimately some man’s fault. Shaming sluts is diametrically opposed to Christian tenets of love, forgiveness and redemption, so we won’t do it. All she has to do is repent, come to Church and say she’s sorry for letting some man (men) ravage her body, and God will do the rest. We’ll leave aside for later the sticky wicket of natural consequences. Someone else will have to deal with that. We deal in the spiritual, and that’s all we need to do.

9. The divorce culture, the current legal setup in which women are encouraged to divorce for the flimsiest of reasons, men are impoverished and income streams to divorced women are arranged, the destruction of families: these things are bad. But men going around having premarital sex and deflowering precious paragons of virtue is worse, even if the paragons were begging for it. And any man who does this deserves to have a woman divorce and impoverish him, because that’s just and fair, and our God is a God of justice.

RE: empathologicalism
“Christianity doesnt change. The church does. Substitute “the church” for Christianity and pretty much its all true as stated” ~empathologicalism

Every Christian ecclesial community, every protestant sect, rejected contraception as sinful until 1930.

http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1930/
With the 1930 Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops they claimed that contraception could be used (Resolution 15,) but only when “clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood” with “the primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse.” In the following resolutions here is the summary:
Resolution 16: abortion is abhorrent.
Resolution 17: contraception shouldn’t be the way to address economic and social problems
Resolution 18: “Sexual intercourse between persons who are not legally married is a grievous sin.” and there should be laws against advertising and easy access to contraception
Resolution 19: People should be chaste before marriage. Irregular unions are bad.
Resolution 20: The police and social workers who instruct on this new birth control methods should be supported by the Anglican community.

There is no secret reason why resolutions 16-19 had to be added after the resolution allowing birth control. All of the following abortion, increase in sexual immorality, etc are a direct consequence of tearing life from love. History has shown a biblical increase in abortion, government coercion using birth control to control population to address social issues (i.e. China) an increase in fornication and adultery, and decrease in chastity before marriage and an increase in adultery, and an increase in irregular unions.

Starting with the church that began with Henry VIII sexual immorality Satan instituted an attack to bludgeon all the Christian communities. Many pamphlets from before 1930 highly condemn contraceptives. Even the Lambeth conference 10 years before in 1920 condemns it: “The Conference must condemn the distribution or use, before exposure to infection, of so-called prophylactics, since these cannot but be regarded as an invitation to vice.”

Going back to the bible there are several admonitions against “pharmakeia” (the root word for pharmacy) which is often translated into English as “sorcery” but in context it is quite obvious that at the time pharmakeia was referring in cases to drugs that produce sterility and induce abortions (and at another passage also possibly also referring to abuse of ancient opiates.)

The one true church, the bride of Christ has not changed her message on contraceptives.

As Jesus said,
“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” Luke 22:31-32

10. This so-called MGTOW business is merely men becoming parasites upon society. MGTOWs do nothing and ultimately give nothing back to the society in which they live and feed upon. They need to leave the MGTOW lifestyle, man up, quit playing video games and working at the comic book store, and marry the “reformed sluts” on which we are slapping those coats of Kilz. That way, these men can contribute to society in a way we believe is most appropriate. But if things go bad, or she decides she’s not haaaappy, or decides to EatPrayLove, he’s on his own. It’s his job to be nice to her, be sensitive to her needs, and submit himself to Jesus, the Ultimate Boyfriend and Lover of His/Her Soul. And if she leaves, it’s not our fault. We did our part. We had her pray the prayer. Hey, he f**ked up, he trusted us.

11. (Courtesy of FlirtyIntroverts) If men have it so bad and they feel they cannot get married because of unfair divorce laws, then they need to band together and change the divorce laws to make them fairer. The fact that the vast majority of men are not agitating for wholesale divorce reform means (1) they don’t think they are being treated unfairly; (2) the men who do get screwed got what’s coming to them; and/or (3) men still have all the political and economic power in this country and if they really wanted reform it would happen tomorrow.

I’m considering writing a post responding to your concern about the frequent references to game. I’m looking for an excellent comment I think you made once about churches having the man sobbing confessing his weakness, while his wife rubs circles on his back, but I’m not having any luck. Was that you? Can you find it?

Anonymous Reader – ”…the current crop of trad con bloggers is remarkable in lack of ability to expound on their positions beyond basic “we oppose divorce, and sin”.”

This, I believe, accounts for the bulk of my frustration with TradCons (and SoCons). They simply will not go beyond the most superficial of analyses regarding the current dynamics at work in society.

Deti’ enumerated list (starting at February 27, 2012 at 8:36 am) is, in my estimation, a very accurate accounting of the sum-total of all the thought that the Con’s are willing to put into the very complex and very important issues that are routinely dealt with (in much, much greater depth) in the Manosphere. They cannot be bothered with their obvious contradictions, likely because that can consider only one single aspect of an issue at any given time.

That they refuse to think any deeper is what makes the effort to try to deal with them so very frustrating. If they did think, we might well influence them as they might then actually take into consideration what is being presented to them. As it is, they simply put up their shields (which basically amounts to shoving their collective fingers in their ears and loudly chanting the prescribed set of thoughts that Deti exposed.

What the Manosphere does (and what they rightly perceive to be it’s greatest threat to their comfortable geocentric existence) is not spread anger, but rather it spreads truth (the truth sometimes does evokes anger in those who come to realize that they have been deceived). It educates (young) men, and goes towards addressing the BS that Deti’s point #11 points out.

Men have not banded together to act in their own best interests WRT marriage (2.0) largely because they have been kept in the dark about the truths that the Manosphere (threatens to) reveals to them. Some young men have been blissfully ignorant of the pitfalls, and put their trust in the women they have asked to be their wives. Others have seen for themselves the devastation of divorce upon families – especially the men and children – yet can only despair that marriage (2.0) just isn’t for them.

The development of the message of the Manosphere, and it’s unchecked spread via the (yet) largely uncensored medium of the Internet, threatens to teach the young men in both camps not only about the pitfalls of Marriage 2.0, but also that they are not alone and personally isolated. It will eventually demonstrate to men that we can come together and actually push for meaningful legal reforms (Fathers & Families et. al. are already doing this), and for a voice for their frustrations and dissatisfaction with the current status quo – and there is no bigger threat to the members of “Team Woman”, be they on the gender-feminist left, or on the SoCon/TradCon pseudo-Christian gynocentric right.

“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.”
― Mahatma Gandhi

Okay, I should have given the disclaimer that the rapid spread of the influence of the Manoshpere still faces many (internal) hurtles – not least of which is the general trend away from men organizing around issues. perhaps due to some deeply ingrained “hard-wiring” to instead compete for women.

“They cannot be bothered with their obvious contradictions, likely because that can consider only one single aspect of an issue at any given time.

That they refuse to think any deeper is what makes the effort to try to deal with them so very frustrating.”

These things are true. But this brings back one of Brendan’s excellent points, which is that the modern US Church (Roman Catholic, mainstream protestant, fundamentalists, and evangelicals) fully embraces feminism except for abortion, extramarital sex and (in the case of Catholicism) artificial birth control. You can’t talk to them about divorce, because what you get back are shrieks of “If it’s so bad, then you men should band together and change it. After all, you men have all the political power and all the high paying jobs.” This is feminism-victimhood speak. Or you get something like “well, not all women think or believe that.” Femcentric thinking.

Feminism. and the notion that men and women are equal in every way except for secondary sexual characteristics, has so permeated every institution, every media, every workplace, every facet of our modern lives, that both men and women reflexively spout feminist egalitarian platitudes without even thinking about it. Feminism and egalitarianism are accepted as truth with no questions.

Even Biblical scripture is taken out of context and twisted to serve feminist interests. “In Christ there is no male and female.” (never mind that this has no application to husbands and wives.) Mutual submission of spouses is urged. These things are urged upon churchgoers while more clear and explicit scriptural instructions specifically to husbands and wives are usually completely ignored. If those explicit instructions are preached or taught, they are always leavened with stern directives to men not to “treat women as doormats”. Meanwhile women are never given concomitant stern directives to respect their husbands and this means wifely submission to the husband’s dominant role as head of the family.

“Men have not banded together to act in their own best interests WRT marriage (2.0) largely because they have been kept in the dark about the truths that the Manosphere (threatens to) reveals to them. Some young men have been blissfully ignorant of the pitfalls, and put their trust in the women they have asked to be their wives. Others have seen for themselves the devastation of divorce upon families – especially the men and children – yet can only despair that marriage (2.0) just isn’t for them.”

I think men don’t band together as a political bloc because they don’t behave that way. They are more independent and prone to GTOW than to agitate for political or legal reforms. As you said, werner, men compete with each other in this society.

As for men today, it looks like a lot of men have either (1) learned about divorce the hard way; or (2) figured it out for themselves by watching someone they know get chewed up in the divorce meat grinder. Many times that person is his own father and he watched his own mother grind him up. Almost every man I know knows someone who went through a hell-on-earth divorce, pays through the nose for the privilege of watching his ex wife screw Harley McBadboy in what used to be his house, and never gets to see his kids. Some of the men I know have been through it themselves. So a lot of young men are saying, “So I should sign up for THAT? Pass.”

I’ll take the modern US church a whole lot more seriously on issues of male-female relationships and marriage when it

1. tells women to woman up, stop watching Lifetime, learn how to cook, learn how to take care of a house, learn how to make themselves more physically attractive, and have sex with their husbands even when they don’t feel like it.

2. calls women out and tells them to stop slutting it up with Alpha McGorgeous and Harley McBadboy.

3. tells women to engage in pursuits more academic than US magazine, Cosmo, and the Kardashians.

4. tells sluts how to TRULY reform.

5. levels with sluts and tells them that regardless of true reformation:
a. they will have to bear the natural consequences of their past conduct
b. that they, and they alone, are fully responsible for their past conduct; that it did not just “happen to” them; and that it was not a series of mere “youthful indiscretions”.
c. that they might never find husbands because most men will view them as unsuitable for marriage;
d. that assuming they find men willing to marry them they will have to take what they can get; e. that assuming they find husbands, they will probably have a hard time pair bonding; that they will not be cured of their incurable STDs; and that they will probably have to live with these consequences for the rest of their lives.

6. imposes real consequences for frivolous divorce: refusal of Communion; imposition of church discipline; barring them from serving or positions of authority; public shaming and publication of the divorce; and ultimately, excommunication.

women/church will not do any of that deti until it is in the selfish interest of women to do so. That is a good standard and a way to measure victory. It is posible for women to behave that way even as they talk the same men are bad shit. But the situation has to merit it. (imagine that a word like merit used while talking about modern women.) The mechanics of fixing this will not involve women changing who they are. The childish and wicked selfish peices of shit we see today can be loving and adorable while being the same vindictive cunts as long as it is in their best interest to behave that way.

Yep. That’s the point. The church currently has no moral authority to insist that men marry or become productive members of society when it won’t do anything to enforce its moral convictions.

The church used to have real power. It used that power to pressure its members into compliance with its directives. One could argue whether as applied in particular cases, that pressure was proper, too much or too harsh. But what we cannot argue is that the church had, and used, things such as instruction, shame and ostracism to appeal to its members’ senses of morality, and right and wrong. It was done for the purposes of education, correction, rebuke, deterrence, and discipline. And when necessary, it was deployed to remove members who would not conform to the rules, for the protection of the faithful and as a deterrent to others following the same path.

” Suz says:
February 25, 2012 at 11:53 am
jso,
“when a woman is trusted to make a decision by herself,…)

I wouldn’t say “by herself,” so much as “without consequences.” When consequences are real. most women can make responsible choices as a matter of self preservation. ”

Very good catch. And you are absolutely correct. However, we have had at least 50 years of Feminism (with a capital F) making sure that no woman anywhere ever bears any consequences for anything she may do. The result is, as you state, predictable/inevitable.

“Game is immoral, even in the marriage context, because it is grounded in fraud, deceit and manipulation of women.”
The women chose the men,
and since that saying is “By the fruits shall ye know them” …
what does that say about such women? All of them got tricked? What happened to the vaunted “female intuition”?
To women:
What about to love and honour your husband? How much love are you showing him when you share the body with him that you shared with many others?
How much honour are you showing him when you refuse to say how many sexual partners you had previously?
In other words: you’re building a relationship with a person you consider your soulmate, out of lies and deceit.
Do you deserve a proper relationship if that is how you are building it?

I was reading Dalrock’s latest “Stanton’s Heroes” and went from there to Flirty Introvert and from there to Darwin Catholic.

The response to Game and the Manosphere at Flirty and Darwin seems to be:

The manosphere is bitter and angry! How come you guys are so mad!? We Catholics are for marriage and against divorce, so you can’t come here and blame us for how terrible and messed up things are! Ain’t nobody who’s more against divorce than we are! I mean, we’ve got lots of sayings and press releases and sermons and conferences and encyclicals and pronouncements where we talk about how bad divorce is and stuff!”

“And you guys are immoral because you hang out with pickup artists and nihilists! And you MGTOWs need to man up and start contributing to society again!”

“All a slut has to do to become fit for marriage is repent, and she’s good to go to the altar with a nice guy!”

“Game is toxic, and disrespectful to women! It can’t work! Game is disrespectful to wives!”

Yes, yes, yes and YES!

I love that penultimate quote (about how a slut can repent and she’s good to go)

Truth without an emotional response is pointless, it has to demand action, it has to awaken a call to arms, the giant that is man … make no doubt men built this city, we stand on the shoulders of great men, genius & masters of civilisation, while women stand on the shoulders of beggars & thieves

Anger is & always has been a catalyst for the greatness of man…

The problem with the manosphere isnt men, the majority of men get it, its the inability of the average & mediocre to understand the words & ideas of other men

These average & mediocre, literally worship their own mediciocrity, these guys form mediocre cults of anti-gamers, anti-paleo, anti-alternative science, anti-conspiracy, even to the point of anti-technology

What the luddites of mediocrity dont understand, when you dont enforce all the advantages given to you, by your biology, the women around you become depraved & feral

We live in a world of impossibility, a world of ideas & complexity, these anti-gamers & cults of anti-conspiracies, literally have no clue how to compete

They think minimising the flow of ideas & opinion, makes them competitive

Wrong it makes you obsolete

The cult of anti-gamers are obsoletists, their inability to understand their own sexuality & biology & need to dominate & compete in a world knowledge & information, always leads to an obsolete culture

Progress is only ever made in a hyper-masculinity competitive social network

Where beta’s are allowed to be men, & masculine, & alphas allowed to innovate & lead with betas providing as checks & safeguards for alpha behaviour

When beta’s are not allowed to be men & masculine, they no longer know how to co-operate with alphas

As a result, the anti-gamers dont know how to co-operate & recognise alpha males, or their concepts

Anti-gamers are the eunuchs of the manosphere

They literally have no sexual identity, & they have no concept of what it takes to be masculine

Women want dominance to the point they destroy their own fertility, & youth

Women have always rejected & cuckolded anti-gamers, what else is a woman going to do with the eunuchs of our society?

Rmaxed the antigame crowd was always there. A healthy strong civil society carried them as it kept female hypergamy in check. The blue pill norm of the boy working hard to get an education being kind to a girl asking her out and falling in love with her respecting what she had with appreciation both making a determination to commit to each other and marry. The whole society from top to bottom was set up to that ideal. From no gays in the military,the church (actually being of the bible),abortion was illegal, men had rights to go with responsibility etc. etc. To at least end feminism and make those guys irrelevant the 80 percent of men the beta types (us) are going to be the ones. The only reason the anti gamers mangina types are even heard is due to their support of feminism. Just as talking to women makes no difference talking to those guys is futile. It is the beta men that are openly blue pilled brainwashed are who i feel we need to reach. These guys are the responsible men the run the country. they are the ones duped into marriage and are shit on by family law. when told the truth until they understand and they become angry.
The patriarchy is never coming back (fuck you bitch) and female feminist entitlement is going away. I firmly believe MGTOW and the male birth control pill is the only way to end this madness short of an open shooting civil war.
As far as Game. I feel game is a tool and skill that is very important for a men young and old especialy young men that will allow them to get through their natural and highly sexualized youth with out having them destroyed by the government laws of misandry. As they age and share space with skanks on the cock carousel their experience will jade them enough to seek a foriegn bride,MGTOW, or seek a surrogate child. Either way a large swath of feminised skanks will never have children and will be forced to work for their entire lives with out relief or security that comes from a loving and commited man. As an MRA that is my goal. From there women can then have their normal hypergamous nature redirected to an acceptable behavior. (note woman are still the same selfish bitches they always were.) with male control over who becomes a mother combined with MGTOW indifference it is more likely a woman will use kindness(politeness) rather than lies and deceite as is currently the case driven in large part by the female herd. When a woman makes the news fucking over a good father and that is used to sell birth control to more young men in sales ads the herd will shame those women and not stop the removal of the laws of misandry. That will be the best we as mra’s can safely expect from women. All done for their own selfish benefit but it will allow a sustainable society that can actually grow in strength.
When the church sees the female herd shift to shaming sluts and gold diggers they will start preaching from the bible. As i said before the PUA is doing the lords work. That is where that comes from.

I don’t know whether PUA are doing the Lord’s work,
but I am pretty sure that the kind of women who only live by their vagina tingle,
are going to be hell for a decent man to live with.
It’s also high time to remember that men who became PUAs are the ones who usually had a great love of their life, stomp all over their heart, damage their reputations and downplay their achievements.
Those women being kept out of circulation until they have to be more equal in relationships, is a good thing.
Because at a later time it is possible for the consequences of their actions to badly affect them, which they previously escaped because they were attractive but cruel.

P Ray
That was the one thing I got from the classes we had at church and the bible is full of stories with consequences. More people seemed to be slaugtered and kindoms destryed in the bible than anywhere else. Freedom to choose with the consequences good and bad best way to live.

I’m considering writing a post responding to your concern about the frequent references to game. I’m looking for an excellent comment I think you made once about churches having the man sobbing confessing his weakness, while his wife rubs circles on his back, but I’m not having any luck. Was that you? Can you find it?

Edit: Found it.
————————————————————

Dalrock

Wow that was a good comment, wish Id have made it on my 20 visitor per day blog….alas….

I want to address the concern about game, and ironically I was going to post on that topic anyway even before I saw this comment by you, because I saw the stupid comment “anti-gamers are the eunuchs of the manosphere”. What the hell? Seriously?

First, I understand the guarded approach to anyone who seems to be a tradcom posting in the mens rights arena. I also know that that that suspicion is well earned, and that it (rightly based on experience) assumes a very certain set of beliefs and worldview of the tradcom because thats what they mostly espouse. Even though I know that I consider myself a tradcom, and not even at conflict with any basic belief of the manosphere, thats because I am NOT the tradcom whose beliefs deserve the ire from posters here and elsewhere, so, whatever, that blow back against tradcoms I agree with fully even the guilty till proven innocent sort of aspect to it.

But this game thing? Sorry, not so much. I refuse to be insulted and mocked over game. Those doing that are actually making a mockery OF game by elevating it to some stream of consciousness thing. Its not understated to mention the word cult with regard to many of the folks who are saying tripe like that. Know this, NOTHING I’m writing her has a wit to do with questioning the veracity or efficacy OF game. That I have some issues about deployment, motives, whatever, thats not germane to here and my common values with MRA’s. What Im saying is game is NOT a common value needed for MRA’s, whether game is perfect or dead flawed, fact or fiction.

The religiosity of adherents to game grows cartoonish, boorish, needlessly offensive, and paints those doing it as the opposite of what they want to be painted as. This deference to guru cum desire to BE guru is painful to read, and off putting to a subject that frankly is far far far to important to be sidetracked to the degree that it is. What it shows is that these men are not with the band of brothers at all, they are positioning themselves as above that, pronouncing from on high. And to be above the fray on AN issue is fine, I love reading someone come in with authoritative knowledge on a topic, convey it, and in doing so edify and improve the whole group.

But that cannot and will not happen with game cultists. If some impressionable well intentioned MRA who maybe has a little bit of weak personality comes and attempts to cozy up to the game authorities, the very best they can hope for is to be condescended to, and have intangible things spoken such as “you will never grasp this until its part of your bones” or similar metaphorical statements of unachievable in reaching game apogee. The the guru seems to posses the wisdom of the master, who one can study under and be perpetually the under study, the master remaining aloof then, never consistently offering advice or critique but like some silly kung fu movie just insisting no one really gets it, oh and throw in some stupid insults as well (and the understudies like that old cartoon with that sniveling dog can all stand in background going yeah yeah hee hee hee yeah yeah sniff sniff). I stated the best they can hope for, the worst is plain old vile derision, attempts to run em off with a your with us or you are outta here language.

I dont know if wrapping them in blankets and rolling them around on the floor would deprogram some of them but Im tempted to try anything because they , as they express themselves today, really mess up any common ground that needs to be established and stable about issues. Nevermind if game tactics are applicable in reparations or not, they take it so far that that is irrelevant.

I know you don’t moderate that way and I hope you don’t start. Let them keep making asses of themselves frankly, meanwhile in the mens rights, evangelical feminism resistance, warning men about misandry, all that, I may well employ some wisdom learned in game, but i will not sell my soul to some gaming guru so that I look small while trying to look big

Wow that was a good comment, wish Id have made it on my 20 visitor per day blog….alas….

It really was. I can’t think of a reason you can’t still make a post out of it. You wrote it after all. You could probably do that with several of your comments here. You have some excellent insight.

As to your concern about game orthodoxy, I think I understand. As I’ve repeated many times, there is no orthodoxy required to participate in this discussion. My only thought is your comment could easily be read as a broadside against a large percentage of the commenters on this site (perhaps including me). I’m not sure you intend it that way though. Specifically, I read your initial comment to be in reply to Deti, but I don’t see Deti as a game cultist in the least. He is one of the more thoughtful commenters here.

One more thought. Either way your concern about game orthodoxy would also be a great topic for your blog. Feel free to make a post on it and comment back here with a link inviting discussion. This way we don’t take this thread off topic, and you get some traffic as well.

Let me backpeddle, yea I see how it could be seen as a broad swipe, I tend to write very very literally, and ignore the perceptions that the words can evoke….my bad.

I assure all, it is no swipe against 99.9% of folks, it was rmaxd who made the Eunuch remark I think, and I do not wish to swipe broadly at even one person, only the kind of comments that make , well, broad swipes about game.

I mean agree or disagree Dalrock, please just so I know, regardless if you require game be subscribed to or not for participation, to you think that there is a correlation between the passion with which game is represented and the efficacy and ideological purity of the MRA in general? I dont see you as believing that, correct me if Im wrong.

I absolutely take away great insights from the underlying observations that form the game “plan” so to speak, and the theory and tactics well reflect those sound observations. IOW, I’m down with game. I refuse to worship game, let game define WHO I am instead of HOW I am, etc. etc.

So, no intended swipe at anyone, making game theory observations and advice in how to comport and handle women, GREAT!. I am talking about the mockery (Im a big boy, mock me all you want no issue, just not using game as a yardstick in the sense that if Ive not “accepted game into my heart” Im not a Game-tian) and the reference to authority sometimes, like “game says___________”. Lets lay it out a layer deeper, not demand or expect that everyone spends hours studying game the way some do the Bible

Empathalogicalism, you might want to write up your observations about Game cultism off line, and then revisit the text a day or so later. Sometimes that helps me to clarify what I’m trying to say. Because I’m not completely clear on what you are trying to say, but certainly I’d like to understand what you are getting at.

[Do] you think that there is a correlation between the passion with which game is represented and the efficacy and ideological purity of the MRA in general? I dont see you as believing that, correct me if Im wrong.

I’m not the one to turn to for such a definition, but no I don’t see how this could be the case. I don’t think anyone would doubt Paul Elam’s sincerity and he is fairly outspoken against game.

I want to express my views without it becoming, though, a review of game vs anti-game, I truly have less than zero interest in that debate. Anyway, I will try, and I will link it here in comments, thank you

I personally see the current ire directed against game and PUAs being due to the fact that they effective. More specifically, they remove control from women and puts control back into men’s hands. I too believe that PUAs are doing good work. If game didn’t work and PUAs were ineffective then articles like Duffy’s wouldn’t exist. In fact, her article has driven me to learn more about game than ever before.

You make some good points. What you’ve written about is this basic tension between the PUAs who live and die by Game and are all about getting laid as much as possible, as often as possible and with as much variety as possible; and the MRAs/MGTOWs on the other hand who are about (1) activism/agitation/raising awareness on men’s issues; and (2) dropping out of the intergender relationship scene. In between are the men who want to improve their marriages, the people who find all this a curiosity; the alt-right; the traditional conservatives; and the HBDers. Then there are the anti-gamers who believe game is a myth, its existence cannot be scientifically proven, and the results seen are actually based on women who were attracted to the men who just cold approach like mad.

Hope I didn’t leave anyone out.

Many are on a sliding scale in and among those factions. I’m a married gamer in the tradition of MarriedManSexLife with a lot of MRA sympathies. While I’m happily married, I completely understand the MRA/MGTOW phenomenon and why it exists. I also think that a few days around here explains with crystal clarity why many men are not marrying or delayed it. It’s not too hard to understand, really.

It seems to me that Game (the study of female psychology and sexuality) is a cafeteria style thing. You can take what you like and leave the rest. I think the efficacy of fundamental game, consisting of male confidence and dominance, is pretty much beyond debate. There is a mountain of scientific evidence that shows women respond to certain traits in men, and respond favorably to them. Women giving unvarnished opinions confirm that they like confidence and dominance in men. Sites in and around the manosphere contain mountains of anecdotes and field reports stating that implementation of game fundamentals led to improvement. Just men not making the same beta supplication mistakes leads to improvement.

No, a man will not go from omega to banging supermodels. But an omega can go from celibate to getting laid. If a woman has no attraction for a man, game is not going to “make her attracted to him”. Game just opens doors, widens opportunity, causes him to see what he didn’t or couldn’t see before. A beta married chump can stop putting up with his wife’s BS, crush her fitness tests, make clear his dominance, and perhaps increase attraction triggers. He can know that he can let his wife pout for a sexless week or two. He can know that his increased dominance also improves the chances that her attraction for him will increase. If it doesn’t work, and his marriage continues to fail, he can know he has options.

The tension between the PUA/hardcore gamers and the MRA/MGTOW/antigamers will rage on, I think. It seems to be the same tension and argument nascent feminism had with itself in the 1970s and 80s. There were the social issue, “reasonable” feminists: those who wanted women but wanted equal pay, sexual harassment protection; and reduced workplace discrimination. A small subset of these became the so-called sex positive feminists who claim the right to have sex whenever, wherever and with whomever they wished. On the other side were the radical feminists; the “fish/bicycle” feminism, and the “all sex is rape” feminism. This side wanted, and wants, “the end of men”. The thing is, feminism quickly grew out of control for many reasons. The “end of men” side won out, the sex pozzies joined them, and that side has been enacting its agenda ever since with the help of manginas and white knights.

In the manosphere, the PUAs and hardcore gamers seem to be the sex pozzies’ ideological counterparts. Married gamers and most manosphere denizens want women and want relationships and marriage. Some survey the landscape and increasingly conclude it’s combat dating, “every man for himself, every woman for herself”. Individual options are all that’s available in the current Wild Wild West of this SMP. There are valid reasons for divorce, and if she is hell-bent on leaving, he still has options. (I think this is probably the most accurate description of how it’s shaken out.) The MRAs are the “reasonable” feminist counterparts, trying to raise awareness of legal and social injustices and hoping to roll back feminism’s mot egregious overreaches. The closest analogy to the “we hate men” feminists are the MGTOWs. Most of them want nothing to do with women, some even saying they hate women.

Vox Day has a good article up today on the Christianity of Game. Paraphrasing, it’s about game having a Biblical basis in that women, like men, are fallen, are imperfect, and cannot be perfected. My application of this is:

1. Women don’t belong on pedestals, ever.
2. Men control the frame and assume the dominant role in the marriage. He determines the course of the relationship. He sets the frame, she steps into it. If she does, great. If she does not, then he is free to find someone who will.

To me the bottom line is that the game/anti-game and PUA/MRA/MGTOW debate is going to continue. I don’t suspect the end result is going to be fairer laws for men or enactment of the MRA agenda. Legally, the most that can probably be hoped for are fairer alimony laws. I think it will be simply men learning what their options are, that they have options they did not know they had, and helping men do better than they did before without knowledge of Game.

The PUAs are going to continue sleeping with whoever they can, because they can, and because they see no value in marriage or conventional relationships. The MGTOWs will continue GTOW, because they similarly don’t care and most believe they have exhausted all other options.

To me the bottom line is that the game/anti-game and PUA/MRA/MGTOW debate is going to continue. I don’t suspect the end result is going to be fairer laws for men or enactment of the MRA agenda. Legally, the most that can probably be hoped for are fairer alimony laws. I think it will be simply men learning what their options are, that they have options they did not know they had, and helping men do better than they did before without knowledge of Game.

This is the way I see it as well, more or less.

The “men’s issues space” is really not a movement, but a clearinghouse of information and perspectives that empower men to make better-informed choices. A part of this is game. A part is evo-psych. A part is understanding family law and related laws (DV, rape, harassment and so on) and how to manage risk with respect to them or avoid them. It really is up to individual guys to decide what they want to do with this information. Do they want to go full casanova with full-on asshole Game? Do they want to try to find a suitable wife using guidelines developed on this site and the kind of approach Athol Kay prescribes? Do they want to avoid marriage and simply have a set of serial shack-ups, or even perhaps one longer shack-up but avoid marriage and kids? Do they just want to opt-out of the whole thing?

All of those are valid approaches. Men will continue to vehemently (and fruitlessly, in my opinion) argue and disagree about the relative merits of each of these approaches — because this is what we do — we argue with each other. But the clearinghouse, complete with the debates about the relative merits of each route, will continue to exist as a resource for guys to figure out what path is best for them.

At the same time, there will be some political progress made by real MRA activists like Fathers & Families and similar groups on a very incremental basis. I don’t expect anything huge here — there is no huge degree of support for it, nor will there likely be in the future, because most men prefer to figure things out for themselves and do what they think is best rather than address these kinds of things collectively — it’s a real weakness of our sex in the context of a democracy. For most men, there are only personal approaches and personal solutions, and that’s what the clearinghouse is there for.

Those are excellent and I agree 100%. They however are not about what Im talking about. I am expressly not speaking to game vs anti-game. I do not care about some gamers after sex variety and some using for marriage…..I really do not care. I too am married and see the wisdom in game in my relationship at home, no problem. But again, there is zero aspect of game vs anti-game in my thoughts.

————————————————————————————————————
Quote
The tension between the PUA/hardcore gamers and the MRA/MGTOW/antigamers will rage on, I think. It seems to be the same tension and argument nascent feminism had with itself in the 1970s and 80s. There were the social issue, “reasonable” feminists: those who wanted women but wanted equal pay, sexual harassment protection; and reduced workplace discrimination.

To me the bottom line is that the game/anti-game and PUA/MRA/MGTOW debate is going to continue. I don’t suspect the end result is going to be fairer laws for men or enactment of the MRA agenda. Legally, the most that can probably be hoped for are fairer alimony laws. I think it will be simply men learning what their options are, that they have options they did not know they had, and helping men do better than they did before without knowledge of Game.
—————————————————————————————————————-

Let me use your words to explain a bit. Your cafeteria thing hit home for me, indeed. Some guy chooses those dishes that fit marriage and uses the sound thinking that can positively impact his marriage. So, lets call him FOR game (because he is not anti-game).
He will come against (coin some nomenclature) uber-gamers, where seemingly there is no aspect of life that is NOT informed by game. And my perception is that they actually hold some animosity to a married guy to begin with BECAUSE it limits his game. So he is perceived by them (I’m theorizing here about motive) as anti-game because he is not single minded about PUA and multiple partners etc, even if he once was lets say. So, they blow back, the uber gamer against the cafeteria gamer.

As to fairer laws, I’m saying that whether that happens of not, advocacy for it by cafeteria gamer, or uber gamer shouldn’t be ranked one superior to the other. In fact advocacy for that by ANTI gamers should also not be ranked lower either, because the condition of the male is so much more important than whether someone is pure in game or not.

This is a lot of what bugs me…..

It’s a created division, unnecessary, and to zero productive end. I always marvel asking what’s the gig of the uber-gamer? Why do they feel the need to say the things they do? Is purity of game more important than purity of pro male anti misandric ideology promotion? In simplistic terms the less gamers the more women for the uber gamers. So that’s not the deal. That leaves a kind of ideological arrogance that is a waste of time and energy and a whole buch of other stuff I attempt to explain here:

“there is no huge degree of support for it, nor will there likely be in the future, because most men prefer to figure things out for themselves and do what they think is best rather than address these kinds of things collectively”

Not to mention the fact that the necessary economic circumstances for such reforms simply aren’t there. But we’ve discussed this here before, of course.

“The closest analogy to the ‘we hate men’ feminists are the MGTOWs. Most of them want nothing to do with women, some even saying they hate women.”

I’m a MGTOW and I don’t hate women. I want little or nothing to do with them because (a) I am old enough so that sex is no longer all that important to me, and (b) dealing with women as they are now in the West is a huge pain in the ass, and is risky. If you don’t want sex from women, spending time with them is a candle that isn’t even close to being worth the game.

I don’t “hate” women any more than I hate rattlesnakes. I just see no reason to get too close to them and very good reasons not to!

“The closest analogy to the ‘we hate men’ feminists are the MGTOWs. Most of them want nothing to do with women, some even saying they hate women.”

If that were the closest analogy, it would have to be the work of an exceedingly feeble intellect. The ‘we hate men’ feminists have metastized in such societal organs as universities and government. They are intent on bringing to fruition their dream of the elimination of most males, as well as their intermediate goals of the elimination of societal traditions which include males in a positive fashion, such as families.

Men haven’t done that, or argued for anything similar. In fact they really don’t care what anyone else does. MGTOW is primarily a rejection of the ideas of others regarding the correct actions of a male, and a desire to maximise ones own utility to oneself. PUA is a different manifestation of the same ethos.

The basic problem for those levelling the charge of ‘hatred’, is the recognition by MGTOW and PUA males of the nature of modern western society, their constant calling of the behaviour of the various actors within that society, and their refusal to be silenced in their condemnation.

MGTOW didn’t start as a group of male separatists. It started as a group of men who didn’t like the “leadership”, such as it was, in the MRA environment at the time, and decided instead to go off on their own and do things their own way. It wasn’t about avoiding women, and isn’t about avoiding women for all MGTOWs. MGTOWs tend to not be into activism (that’s more the MRA group like Paul), and they tend not to be PUAs, but not all of them are woman-avoidant.

to me PUA,MGTOW are the same guy at different stages of life. Both are MRA’s. A lot of young men are MRA’s be default due to the way boys are treated and spoken to and about all of there lives. They also get to witness what is happening to their fathers. As dalrock stated deti is a thoughtful commenter and he has said he is in a happy marriage and has empathy for reality. MRM needs guys like that and Fathers for families and guys like Dalrock. Myself I’m more into insuring women suffer hard for feminism. No ladies first,no helping a women at all. I talk to men and teen age boys and let them know the laws of misandry. Most already have an idea.
The PUA and player game types are 15 to 30 years old and they are most in need of game. The psychology of females and awareness of misandry and feminism should be number one lesson for any 15 year old boy (12 is the actual cut off age for boys not being seen as male children but as evel men) As they experience life in the west they soon learn to be MGTOW all is neccesary to survive in the west as a male. The last piece to add is medical technology of the male birth control pill. The goal is to get as many hesterical and panicked childless women as possible. Even a large group of relativily small number of women that actually want children but no men will allow it. (they will give her the dick but no live semen.) The topic of this aricle the comment is written under must be made into a childless spinster for even thinking as she does. Men that want families shold expat,go foreign bride,adopt or use surrogates. that invironment will be a good time for the activist to change some laws. I see this as an all out war on men and my 5 year old son. I don’t want my son or any body’s son learning how to survive and avoid problems. What hell is that for an american man. If you want to see what surviving looks like here it is. http://www.phillymag.com/articles/the_sorry_lives_and_confusing_times_of_today_s_young_men/ those are men with no drive for there is no purpose for them. The men in the article are aware family men that blindly build nations. A society that can shut down men like that is doomed. Listen to the clueless women talk. College educated make a ton of money doesn’t matter waste of time.

These ‘man up!’ articles are more and more frequent, completely predictable in their tone and message, and yet somewhat troubling. Troubling in the sense that they may be a part of a larger media campaign to psychologically prepare the populace for something. A new round of anti-male legislation perhaps?

These ‘man up!’ articles are more and more frequent, completely predictable in their tone and message, and yet somewhat troubling. Troubling in the sense that they may be a part of a larger media campaign to psychologically prepare the populace for something. A new round of anti-male legislation perhaps?

I think the first thing that will come is a more massive and comprehensive social shaming campaign against men under 30. In some senses that is already happening, but I expect that it will take on “official” aspects in the next phase — that is, it won’t just be media stories, it will be politicians and lawmakers talking about this kind of thing (which they don’t now at all, really, apart from Obama taking fathers to the woodshed on fathers’ day … something which is different from the whining about men in their 20s anyway).

Legislation is possible at some stage after that, but I think what we’re seeing is the beginning of the “doubling down” that TFH talks about, and it will be a mostly social phenomenon at first, and then probably spreading into the political/legal realm later.

The current set up will not tolerate men not doing what women want them to do. And men in their 20s are largely not doing what women (both age peers and older women) want them to be doing, so we are seeing the whining campaign. EIther that escalates to a broader, more comprehensive social shaming campaign (PSAs, then politicos getting involved), or the system goes “pop”, as TFH predicts. We’ll see.

By the way, that Phillymag article is wrong on so many levels I don’t even know when to start. At least the shit Bennett and Hymowith have written are somewhat coherent. This just seems to be a bunch of anecdotes, idiocy and statistics thrown together into an incoherent mess.

Brendan“The thing about MGTOW is that they aren’t all woman-avoidant.”

DetiNor do they all hate women; in fact most don’t. And MGTOWs don’t want women exterminated. They just want women for the most part to go away and leave them alone.

One way to sum up MGTOW: “You won. Ok? You won! Now, leave me alone“.
And btw, there are married men who are pretty close to MGTOW…

That’s why I said it was the closest thing to the So-called “we hate men” feminists.

On reflection, MGTOW’s closest feminine analog might be lesbian separatists. But of course even that analogy is flawed, because lesbian separatists generally are playing house (serial relationship of course) while MGTOW’s live alone by choice as a rule. The male vs. female psyche at work.

The reason for no WomenGTOW is women don’t take responsibility for themselves. Strong feminist damn sure don’t. MGTOW is men taking charge and responsibility for their own life and not producing eccess for society or even some woman.

I think the man up artcle you see has incoherent mess is what the female hysteria will look like. Right now the reaction will be a double down on misandry. One day the reacytion will be indifference to the hysteria. If the wicked selfishness leads to a return to the constitution with each men and woman enjoying the consequences good and bad of the the decisions make. in other words an unopposed and quiet repeal of the laws of misandry. And try to undrstand the game logic on this one. Real actual penalties on women that are enforced. If real gain is had in kindness being shown to men the female herd will trample any woman the fucks things up for her. Example enough female spinster hysteria is related to misandry, misandry will be ended.so she can get hers. And not I will repeat not because she sees how bad a toll misandry has taken on men and boys. MRM must thing along those lines and encourage that if it is ever to meet any real success.
BTW the recession we are in is permanent. MGTOW

John Gilbert Mccurdy, Citizen Bachelors: Manhood and the Creation of the United States. Cornell University Press, 2009. Just look up “bachelor tax” in the preview section if you have an amazon.com account. Pages 58-70 (at least) describe the rise and fall of various bachelor taxes among the English colonies before the American Revolution in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.

I helped raise a kid who was born to a mother who sort of did this (I didn’t know better at the time — this started in 1991). I’m half tempted to ask you for a forum so I can describe the harrowing life the kid had, which included attempting to look his father up in the phone book and calling information and asking the operator about his father — at age 5.

He was so troubled and drug-addled as a teen, his mother (my ex) ended up sending him to one of those outward bound programs, which led to a long-term sleepover “therapeutic” school, which led to all our savings gone, which led to her having to work like crazy, which led to her getting a permanent back injury and suffering five years of chronic pain and now being on permanent disability.

Actually there were WGTOW, before feminism took over. “Eccentric” women, often but not always lesbians, who wanted nothing to do with husbands and families, and they were willing to live on societies margins, usually in near-poverty, to pursue their own interests. They didn’t play by double standards, didn’t ask anyone to support them, and didn’t expect to be taken seriously as potential wives if they should change their minds. They weren’t all “ugly” girls who made wise use of their inevitable spinsterhood; they chose their paths and committed to them, fully understanding the consequences. And most of them weren’t “early” feminists.

Elbridge Gerry was not the only man to struggle with the taint of bachelorhood in Revolutionary America. As the delegates created a new nation, they assailed sexual immorality, luxury and sloth — all of which they associated with the single life. Benjamin Rush of Pennsylvania advised a young man to wed for his own health “for your disorder is seldom met with in married life,” while Benjamin Franklin made a small fortune with such aphorisms as “a man without a wife is but half a man.”

Nor was it just inside Independence Hall that bachelors were scorned. For 80 years, Pennsylvania had collected a levy on single men who earned wages but did not own property.

This tax had been devised as a means of easing the burden on men with large families, but it had become increasingly onerous for the colony’s bachelors. Since the 1740s, landless singles had been paying higher taxes than 90 percent of property owners. At the same time, these bachelors were denied the right to vote because they owned no property.

(emphasis added)

Now, I’m not sure if this McCurdy fellow is a mangina or not (hes apparently an academic, judging by his webpage, and we all know how the academy is full of manginas), but in the article and book he notes that the erosion of bachelor taxes is a good thing, so I assume he’s a Good Guy. He’s also male, that should count for something.

Suz, what sort of “independent women” are you talking about? I cited my book, so it’d be nice if you could cite yours >:o

So sorry, Rmaxd. It appears you made a slogan for something that existed before “women’s rights” or “men’s rights.”

“Men going their own way BECAUSE of persecution & adverse circumstances …”

WGTOW were women to whom society offered no role that they could tolerate. To them, “what society expected of them” WAS adverse. Oh, sure a MGTOW could have married some “free thinker,” who promised not to treat her as the “property” she would legally become, but she’d have to take him at his word; after the fact, she would have no control over her situation – she’d be at his mercy. And why should she feel obligated to “do her duty to society” by producing and raising children? She could just as well work only as hard as necessary to keep a roof over her head; it would be more fulfilling and less risky. And as for persecution, I’m sure the lesbian WGTOW knew a thing or two about it.

These were not the eccentric, independent-minded daughters of families that could support a spinster or two. Many of them were poor enough that abject poverty was a real possibility, yet it was preferable to the few “correct” roles society offered them. Sound familiar?

Hmm. I’ll have to work on that. “Eccentric cat ladies?” Nah, too trite. “Intellectuals who couldn’t read and do laundry at the same time?” Meh. “Bluestockings?” Nope – too political. I suspect they had a few names for them, but none that were at all flattering. Any suggestions?

Alas! My dear Suz, as I’m sure TFH will tell you, women were never oppressed (and as I’m sure the good Hollenhund will tell you, they would have deserved it anyways). The implication that there ever were WGTOW or that women could ever have legitimate reasons to GTOW veers dangerously close to misandry…and I suppose that takes you off the “good woman” list. Grerp, Laura, and Dr. Helen got a bit more lonely, I suppose. You could redeem yourself a little bit (in my eyes, at least) if you could actually be specific about which “WGTOW” you mean. I did ask nicely for a citation above, after all…>:O

“”One way to sum up MGTOW: “You won. Ok? You won! Now, leave me alone“.
And btw, there are married men who are pretty close to MGTOW…””
———————————————————————————

This set me thinking. I fully agree there are these. If I can indulge a second, there is a mental aspect to GOW that anyone can adopt, its a type of apathy really, where one cooperates at his own pleasure, where one is not the least bit bothered by threats of consequences, where one chooses to engage family, wife and kids, where that IS the “way” in MGTOW, so a state of mind manifests that is a sense of freedom that’s unbelievably freeing. This state of mind is crucial to reach to be an effective man no matter what choices you are making

Obamacare is already a new wave of anti-male legislation, soon to take effect. All sorts of female things are subsidized, but male-specific health issues are defunded.

Next up is probably a bachelor tax (which would affect divorced men too). I have seen even ‘conservative’ National Review get giddy about how great of an idea it is for men to have a higher tax rate than women.

Bachelor taxes seem likely — you can already see the arguments for it under the “men are slackers” rubric that is making the rounds currently. I think it won’t work (taxes can create disincentives to produce, rather than incentives to produce more), but it will be done out of frustration — rather than addressing issues around fatherhood, because that would be “anti-woman”. I’d also expect gradual diminishing of government aid to men even below where it is now, due to a general lessening of social sympathy for men. The key point, though, is that none of this will likely be effective to get men in their 20s to participate more broadly.

Personally I think there’s a lot of hoo-hah about men in their 20s. Why would the average guy in his 20s behave any differently? Even for a guy who eventually wants to get married and have kids, it makes little sense to do so until the early 30s, when his stock begins to rise, equalize, and surpass that of his peers, on average, giving him a stronger hand in the market — sitting out the “relationship” part of the market in the 20s (until his relationship market stock improves vis-a-vis his peer women in his 30s) in favor of casual sex and Guyland seems 100% rational to me. However, it doesn’t mean these guys are permanently dropped out. Before we can say that, we’ll have to see what they are doing in their mid-30s. Women whining about men behaving this way in their 20s are just complaining about the guys behaving rationally under the current sexual/relational market, taking a rational account of how his value rises over time relative to women’s. value — which, I strongly suspect, is the subconscious, underlying reason for all of the shrieking –> this behavior of men delaying deciding to marry until their thirties (if at all) neutralizes the relationship market power the whining women have in their own 20s. Boo fucking hoo, is all I have to say to that, really.

That said, MGTOWs who *could* get sex at will are very different from the self-proclaimed MGTOWs who cannot. The latter claim that they are at peace with themselves, but seem to have insecure personalities and get extremely excited when even a female commenter on the Internet has a dialog with them.

True.

I think you also have to put divorced guys into the mix. Many of these guys are MGTOWs who are not celibate, but just are intent on not shacking up and not marrying again — they still enjoy women and sex, but are also MGTOWs.

On reflection, MGTOW’s closest feminine analog might be lesbian separatists. But of course even that analogy is flawed, because lesbian separatists generally are playing house (serial relationship of course) while MGTOW’s live alone by choice as a rule. The male vs. female psyche at work.

Also the other obvious flaw in that analogy is that almost no MGTOWs that I am aware of have taken the “gay option”, because male sexuality is not fluid like women’s sexuality *can* be. So, even though people like OneSTDV or PA call these women-avoidant MGTOWs (or even strident MRAs) “fags” or “semi-fags” (obviously making the analogy to lesbian separatists in order to shame these guys), it rings false because these guys are not gay, not shacking up with men, and are not fluid sexually.

Oh, I agree Hurp, women were never oppressed as a group. WGTOW were avoiding the risk of being *individually* oppressed. As for examples, I’ll have to do some research to find famous WGTOW, but the problem with that is their fame: if they’re well known, it’s probably because they are known as early feminists. Off the top of my head, I can cite one from my family tree – my great aunt was a “career girl.” She was a nurse who never married (but could have) and I suspect she may have even had a discreet affair or two. With men.

Do you really think ALL of the spinster teachers, nurses, dressmakers, authors, artists, laundresses, etc. were single only because they couldn’t find husbands? WGOTW were rare; they simply didn’t fit into the “traditional” roles society assigned them, and they were smart enough to realize it. They chose to live (often in poverty) with society’s disapproval as “eccentrics,” rather than as miserable and inadequate wives and mothers. A small proportion of the female population has always lacked, or nearly lacked, the maternal instinct. If that weren’t the case, feminism would never have gotten off the ground, as the premise behind feminism is that “instinct” doesn’t exist – the urge to marry and have children was a culturally taught behavior, and completely optional. Genuine misfits have always existed. I’ll try to find more real-life examples for you, but as I said, most of them weren’t famous. They (and their peers) didn’t “celebrate” their oddness.

Nonsense, Rmaxd. The only difference is that they didn’t identify themselves as a group. To them it wasn’t “noble,” it was personally necessary, as individuals. Are you saying the MGOTW count only if they consider themselves part of a political movement? Wouldn’t that blow the stats out of the water, as many MGTOW choose it for personal reasons rather than political ones?

Incidentally, Hurp, I’m not here to win anyone’s approval so that I can join the “good women” club. I’m here because I acknowledge the truth when I see it. I see a lot of truth in the Manoshpere, but I also see a fair amount of overly broad generalization and misleading hyperbole.

Personally I think there’s a lot of hoo-hah about men in their 20s. Why would the average guy in his 20s behave any differently? Even for a guy who eventually wants to get married and have kids, it makes little sense to do so until the early 30s,

It’s not about that, Brendan. It’s that these white knights who claim that guys have to “man up” believe that the guys must work during their 20s (in college, in the workplace) so they are ready to get married in their thirties to the women who “have had their fun” and are ready to be married. But they are not doing that: they are playing Xbox…

I think this “man up” campaign is caused by a misunderstanding between women and white knights.

When women in their mid or late thirties start whining “Why men don’t want to marry me? Why are such Peter Pans?”, they don’t refer to the shy guy who is playing with the Xbox in their basement’s parents. They refer to the hot alpha women would like to land. But this alpha is too busy enjoying the alpha carousel to settle down.

But white knights are believers in the doctrine that women “only want to LURV and a good men to have a family”. So they think women refer to the nice guys white knights know: the ones who have dropped out from an adverse sexual market. It is these guys who are shamed by the whiite knights, who don’t know that these guys are not wanted by women. It’s not that they don’t want to build a family: it’s that women don’t want to build a family with us. In fact, they are invisible for women. These guys, who have been despised by women all their life, have to bear to be blamed for the plight of the single women that they don’t want them and have never wanted them.

It’s not about that, Brendan. It’s that these white knights who claim that guys have to “man up” believe that the guys must work during their 20s (in college, in the workplace) so they are ready to get married in their thirties to the women who “have had their fun” and are ready to be married. But they are not doing that: they are playing Xbox…

I think this “man up” campaign is caused by a misunderstanding between women and white knights.

When women in their mid or late thirties start whining “Why men don’t want to marry me? Why are such Peter Pans?”, they don’t refer to the shy guy who is playing with the Xbox in their basement’s parents. They refer to the hot alpha women would like to land. But this alpha is too busy enjoying the alpha carousel to settle down.

But white knights are believers in the doctrine that women “only want to LURV and a good men to have a family”. So they think women refer to the nice guys white knights know: the ones who have dropped out from an adverse sexual market. It is these guys who are shamed by the whiite knights, who don’t know that these guys are not wanted by women. It’s not that they don’t want to build a family: it’s that women don’t want to build a family with us. In fact, they are invisible for women. These guys, who have been despised by women all their life, have to bear to be blamed for the plight of the single women that they don’t want them and have never wanted them.

Mostly agree, although I see it a bit differently.

The complaint that women have (like the one who wrote that article, and people like Kay Hymowitz and so on) isn’t about the guys playing Warcraft in the basement, but about the guys they are attracted to. That’s correct. But it isn’t white-knighting — these are women complaining. What they are complaining about is that the most attractive men (the ones the women are attracted to) are not interested in settling down with them, but are instead having casual sex and living in guyland. That’s true. Kate Bolick did the same thing in her article when she whined about the attractive male editor in his early 40s who wanted to play the field (because he could). For guys who can get women that easily, there really is no incentive at all to settle for one of them unless they have a religious reason to do so. And, due to preselection and hypergamy, many of these guys are the ones who are the most attractive to women.

The white knights like Bennett are complaining about people playing video games, and these are not the alphas who are very attractive to women. However, I do think that it remains to be seen what these guys do when they are in their 30s. Many of them are working and have decent jobs, and do Guyland stuff in their spare time (instead of relationships, because the market sucks for them) and will be in a pretty good state in their 30s, and may be spending less time in guyland by then. It remains to be seen whether they, as their stock rises in the relationship market, settle down or become more like players themselves.

In other words, there are three groups, not two: (1) alphas getting women, whom women are whining about not settling down, (2) omegas in the basement playing Warcraft and (3) average guys in the middle, working normally but getting no play in the market until they are ~30, and who drop out of the market in their 20s in favor of Guyland stuff. The women are complaining about (1) …. (2) and (3) are irrelevant because not attractive. The W-Ks are making the mistakes of (1) not realizing that women don’t want (2) and (3) guys, generally, (2) conflating (2) and (3) guys together, when in reality the behaviors or (2) and (3) guys are quite different and while nothing much can be done for (2)s in any system, the reason why the (3)s have dropped out has nothing to do with what the WKs think it does. In general, all of this comes down to a very flawed understanding of the current system of human sex and mate selection in the West by WKs.

Suz – ”Oh, I agree Hurp, women were never oppressed as a group. WGTOW were avoiding the risk of being *individually* oppressed.”

In defense of Suz’s observation of WGTOW in the more distant pass, it was not that they were (directly) oppressed, but rather that society largely ignored them (and, had it been know that they were lesbians, they would have at least been shunned, if not out-right harassed).

There have always been a few MGTOW’s as well. The term “Hermit” is used as commonly today, but in the past, there have always been those who chose to remove themselves from societal interaction and live alone. It was more likely that a man could survive completely on his own than that a woman could, so most WGOTW’s in the past would have been more likely to have found a niche on the fringes of society, and simply kept quite about any personal proclivities that would have lead to their being ostracized.

I do agree with Suz that they are really nothing new, but what has changed is that such women no longer have to “remain quite” and live a life of more personal solitude. With the change in socio-political climate to be more accepting of homosexuality, lesbians have more opportunity to connect with others and form domestic relationships. The other thing that has changed is that they can now advertise themselves as a victim class (including claims of historical oppression), which (most importantly) has lead to new ways for them to receive financial benefit based on that victim status.

The reason you don’t see many WGTOW today is that they have enhanced legal (and social) protections which allow them to be open, if not “in your face” about their non-participation in the male-female SMP and MMP’s.

Prior to the influence of feminism a woman like Andrea Dworkin, who suffered from a notable lack of attractiveness (or, as Dworkin also had significant shortcomings concerning, in basic social graces) would have been “rejects” from both the SMP (such as it existed) and the MMP, and would have been those WGTOW types Suz alludes to.

But thanks to the influence feminism has had, such women are now held up as examples of victims of the Patriarchal oppression of women based on their attractiveness (or, rather, appalling lack thereof).

Personally, I think we’d all benefit from some women simply quietly withdrawing themselves into WGTOW life-styles once again.

I want you to understand that I really enjoy reading you. Yet, it seems your sentence structure is breaking down in several comments. I hope you take this as a ‘What’s up, buddy?’ rather than a slagging.

”(a) a slight majority of divorces (50 – 66 percent) are unnecessary, “unnecessary” in the sense that these divorcing couples experience average happiness and low conflict,

(b) a lowered divorce rate would be in the best interest of children (e.g., adjusted for parental income and education, children of divorce are at higher risk of poverty, lower family wealth, higher risk of school failure, stunted educational and professional achievement, higher risk of substance abuse, incarceration, and teen pregnancy, and higher risk of physical and/or sexual abuse),

(d) many divorces are preventable, in that about “40% of US couples already well into the divorce process say that one or both of them are interested in the possibility of reconciliation”, and (e) around 1/3 of marriages that ever experience low marital happiness “turn around”…in other words, they recover. This fraction is uncannily similar to the fraction of spouses that are open to pursuing
reconciliation.”

RE: Men-Mars/ Women-Venus
Sitting in roll the other day, about 40-60% women to men ratio and the subject of Politics comes up; the guys start trashing Bill Clinton for being a pedophile scumbag for diddling Monica.
The women…ALL OF THEM…said they would bang Bill Clinton…after all , he was the president. When a voice vote of the men was taken as to whether they would bang Hillary if she were president…NONE… would tap that dried up hag.
The gals were absolutely incredulous that guys simply do not care what career height a woman achieves, if she is old/ugly, they have ZERO interest in her as a sexual being.
With gals, no matter how deformed a guy is, if he has one of the following… looks/fame/power/money he can bag any woman he wants.

Men find these things desirable in a woman: no nagging, no complaining, no flaking, low partner count, responsible, kindness, optimism, cheerfulness.

(In other words, look good and be nice.)

Ladies, please note what is not on this list of things men find attractive or desirable:
—your job.
—the amount of money you make.
—the many places you’ve seen or traveled to.
—your ambition or desire to “make something out of yourself”.
—your drive or determination.
—your relative fame or notoriety.

Here’s why:

Your job or your salary, and how well-known you are to people, just don’t matter to men in terms of attraction. These things just aren’t relevant to whether a man will find a woman attractive.

It’s cool if a woman is ambitious, driven or determined. But some men will find her overly competitive. We want our women to complement us, not compete with us. A woman’s level of ambition will probably limit the number of men she finds attractive.

With gals, no matter how deformed a guy is, if he has one of the following… looks/fame/power/money he can bag any woman he wants.

On the money aspect, this has largely devolved into a gold-digger subculture. Guys like Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg are loaded and ended up with fine but not very much above average looking women. They could have had beauties, but those women would have been gold-diggers. In an era where women can earn their own truck, the money factor has been greatly diluted in importance in terms of attracting a beautiful woman. On the other hand, what we are seeing a lot of is assortative mating among high-earning men and women to create super-earnings families. That’s the basis for the new elite, but it isn’t the case that these guys are getting any woman they want.

Fame, power and looks, are more valued because they cannot be replicated by women themselves. And so they have held their own in terms of attractional magnets, and in fact have *increased* in significance due to women’s growing financial independence, which has reduced the importance of money (and, in turn, inflated the importance of the other three).

No, both the women and the White Knights want the Dwellers (2 and 3) to obey Armand Marcotte’s dictum:
***Be More Attractive, Dammit!***

It’s their fault, after all. After all, women have made such extra-OR-dinary strides in the last 40 years, and so E-ffortlessly, that it MUST be relatively easy for all men to evolve into hyper-competent CEOs with a leather jacket and an alt-thug edge. The only acceptable explanation is that men are just too lazy, too indolent, too secular, or too dickless to comply.

No, both the women and the White Knights want the Dwellers (2 and 3) to obey Armand Marcotte’s dictum:
***Be More Attractive, Dammit!***

In very different ways, however.

WKs think “being more attractive” means being productive, responsible, and “nice”/chivalrous/etc. The WKs aren’t getting that this is not attractive to most women.

Women, however, want what you have said: “SuperFriends” marriages with men who are both sexy and super-successful. Women and WKs differ in what they want men to be doing, but they agree in that they don’t want men to do what the men themselves want to do.

@ Brendan, Mule:
“No, both the women and the White Knights want the Dwellers (2 and 3) to obey Armand Marcotte’s dictum:
***Be More Attractive, Dammit!***”

“Women, however, want what you have said: “SuperFriends” marriages with men who are both sexy and super-successful. Women and WKs differ in what they want men to be doing, but they agree in that they don’t want men to do what the men themselves want to do.”

And in addition to everything you said, we’re also seeing the rise of Game 2.0, which is, roughly, “Men need to learn Game for the specific purpose of increasing their attractiveness to women, so that women can select them for relationships and marriage.”

This is actually Game coopted to serve women’s interests. Its primary effect are to (1) subordinate the man’s wants, needs and desires to that of a woman; and (2) to blunt the edgier effects of Game on the man’s outward persona so as to make it more palatable to women.

@Suz
“Do you really think ALL of the spinster teachers, nurses, dressmakers, authors, artists, laundresses, etc. were single only because they couldn’t find husbands? WGOTW were rare; they simply didn’t fit into the “traditional” roles society assigned them, and they were smart enough to realize it. They chose to live (often in poverty) with society’s disapproval as “eccentrics,” rather than as miserable and inadequate wives and mothers. A small proportion of the female population has always lacked, or nearly lacked, the maternal instinct. If that weren’t the case, feminism would never have gotten off the ground, as the premise behind feminism is that “instinct” doesn’t exist – the urge to marry and have children was a culturally taught behavior, and completely optional. Genuine misfits have always existed. I’ll try to find more real-life examples for you, but as I said, most of them weren’t famous. They (and their peers) didn’t “celebrate” their oddness”.
Those type of women were always there but they are not WGTOW. They were just plain spinsters. It was normal for those women to be alone. MGTOW is a decision made to protect onesself from misandry and a reaction to a society that in general hates men. there is no such thing as WGTOW. MGTOW is not neccesarily normal but a political,personal and/or financial decision.

…though sometimes I wonder if the manosphere isn’t indulging in a little ‘apex fallacy’ of their own.

Not really, although in text it can seem so. It depends on who is talking.

The reality is that due to the wide open SMP, you have 5-8 women cavorting with 7-10 men in carousel hookups — in fact it is the 5-8s that are the majority of this. So, it isn’t that men in the 5+ range are bitching about apex women (most men get over that in high school), but that their peers in objective SMP (that is, unadjusted for age/freemarket) are carouseling. It isn’t so much an apex fallacy as an observation of hypergamy in action. And I think this is what most of the manosphere is talking about — not the beauty queens.

Now, for the WKs, I agree that they are definitely focused on the high socio-econ demo of women — the “apex” women. And that is a small group of women, I’d agree, but also not really congruent with the beauty queens set, but often quite congruent with the 5-8 SMV women riding the carousel in big blue coastal cities, hoping to snag one of the top men for a LTR/marriage.

And in addition to everything you said, we’re also seeing the rise of Game 2.0, which is, roughly, “Men need to learn Game for the specific purpose of increasing their attractiveness to women, so that women can select them for relationships and marriage.”

This is actually Game coopted to serve women’s interests. Its primary effect are to (1) subordinate the man’s wants, needs and desires to that of a woman; and (2) to blunt the edgier effects of Game on the man’s outward persona so as to make it more palatable to women.

Yes. It’s the potential dark side of Game that is now coming to roost in the manosphere sadly, as PMAFT pointed out a while ago.

“It’s the potential dark side of Game that is now coming to roost in the manosphere sadly, as PMAFT pointed out a while ago.”

I have no problem with any man learning game to bump up his attractiveness to get a GF or a wife, if that’s what he wants. The problems are:

1. People like Mark Driscoll et al will say that Game 2.0 is the only proper application of game. To the tradcons and other naysayers, use of game principles for anything other than getting and keeping a wife will be verboten. That just leads to where we are now, with women’s unhappiness and dissatisfaction with men, requiring men to “measure up” and “Man up”. A$$hole game, Dark Triad game and P & D game will be considered “inappropriate”.

2. Once again, Team Woman considers the woman’s needs as paramount and that the man’s needs must always take second place.

3. If the man has to ramp up his game to attract and get the GF or wife, he has to sustain it to keep her. If Game and his presentation of it is a basis for their marriage, and he slips, she’ll use it to justify cheating or a divorce.

No man can peacock, neg, or run cocky/funny all the time. It’s pretty hard to pass every single shit test. Game 2.0 means he will have to spend the rest of his life running the same Game on his wife that he ran when they were dating. So he will be on a neverending treadmill, having no choice but to stay at top Game form or risk the divorce meat grinder.

I have no problem with any man learning game to bump up his attractiveness to get a GF or a wife, if that’s what he wants. The problems are:

1. People like Mark Driscoll et al will say that Game 2.0 is the only proper application of game. To the tradcons and other naysayers, use of game principles for anything other than getting and keeping a wife will be verboten. That just leads to where we are now, with women’s unhappiness and dissatisfaction with men, requiring men to “measure up” and “Man up”. A$$hole game, Dark Triad game and P & D game will be considered “inappropriate”.

2. Once again, Team Woman considers the woman’s needs as paramount and that the man’s needs must always take second place.

3. If the man has to ramp up his game to attract and get the GF or wife, he has to sustain it to keep her. If Game and his presentation of it is a basis for their marriage, and he slips, she’ll use it to justify cheating or a divorce.

No man can peacock, neg, or run cocky/funny all the time. It’s pretty hard to pass every single shit test. Game 2.0 means he will have to spend the rest of his life running the same Game on his wife that he ran when they were dating. So he will be on a neverending treadmill, having no choice but to stay at top Game form or risk the divorce meat grinder.

So Game 2.0 benefits women at the expense of men.

Precisely, which is the crux of the problem. It is now being mobilized *against* men. This was predicted by MRAs, and was frankly predictable as whole. It doesn’t mean Game is bad — not at all. Just that it was inevitable that it would be mobilized against men, eventually, once it got to some level of low level yet critical mass acceptance as to be threatening.

^ The other thing about “Game 2.0” always being on:
If you have to be a jackass to attract her, and be a jackass to keep her …
at any point she can leave with the excuse of “you’re a jackass”, making it easier to get others on board with the idea of “he was abusive!”

It’s all about “building a better beta”, really. But not about actually rewarding that beta…

Ironic thought: in a few years, we could see a newer version of “ManUp” articles that specifically tout Game for men in order to make them better marriage candidates for empowered, strong, independent wimmen. Then instead of the current “it works – no, it’s fake” debate, or the “it’s bad for teh wimmenz” cries from the tradcons, we’ll get debates over “what is REAL Game?”.

The simplest test for any proposal is que bono? Who benefits? Any time I see something that ultimately protects carousel riders – even “carousel lite SmartHookup riders” – I know what it’s about. Kind of like poker. Looking around the table, if I can’t spot the chump who is there to get sheared, then likely that chump is me.

Game is not for women and never was. Game is for men and players. Gaming a wife is bullshit and always has been. The bitch is a wife. If she needs to be gamed she is just some slut you are fucking for way too high a price. Gaming a wife is to survive her under the laws of misandry. It is not and cannot be a way of marriage and life. Any man that thinks he can have a happy marriage by gaming his wife is a fool. Any woman that even remotly after reading a mens blog thinks guys should entrertain her with game is a piece of shit that needs to pumped and dumped over and over and shared with guys that like to do anal. Never ever sit up beg to woman.

The simplest test for any proposal is que bono? Who benefits? Any time I see something that ultimately protects carousel riders – even “carousel lite SmartHookup riders” – I know what it’s about. Kind of like poker. Looking around the table, if I can’t spot the chump who is there to get sheared, then likely that chump is me.

Indeed, but take care. There is an unfortunate overlap between “good” Game, which helps men, and “bad” Game 2.0, which enslaves men according to a new paradigm.

“greyghost, it may be true that “the bitch is a wife” but it can require Game to remind her of that fact.”
She is a wife. The fact she is a wife means she is special. She also has duty and resposibility to the marriage. a red pill man tells his wfe that she is a wife and lets her know she is not some slut that you are gaming off the cock carousel. Tell the woman you are following the wedding vows and she does the same. The mutual respect and the emotional pay off off happiness is a by product of responsibile adualts honoring a commitment to each other . A wife is a bad motha fucka and she should be told up front in plain no soft and nice language what a wife is.

indifference is easy if you don’t have kids. Most women instinctivly know that they are easily gotten rid of without hostages. As said by micheal irving on a sports radio show once you start off hard you can back off but can never start soft and try to go hard. The bottom line is as a single man to need this conversation in the first place says don’t get married the society is too far gone. For the only reason for a man to marry now days is to get a uterus to grow his child in. Woman today have seen to it that no man will recieve the slightest benefit from marriage and that will be fully enforce at gunpoint by the government.
The staight talk is a red pill thing to do for a man that just has to have a child, going foriegn,expatting, using a surrogate,or even maybe pulling off an adoption will be a more secure and less stressful way to go for long term father hood. But all of these things are just survival techniques in a sick society. Even game itself is a reaction to unchecked hypergamy from a society laced with misandry. Me personally I am more interested in changing the society. I just want the laws of misandry gone for my son(5)

“Game’s more about rejecting alpha cock loving hoes, & demanding chicks submit to you as a man …”

Yeah, I like that.

Beyond the women issue, I think Game is about not taking shit from people. It’s kind of Manning Up For Yourself, as opposed to manning up for whoever wants to manipulate you. No need to become a gangsta / playa, just make sure you’re not being set up as a sucker.

The gals were absolutely incredulous that guys simply do not care what career height a woman achieves, if she is old/ugly, they have ZERO interest in her as a sexual being

Another prime example of women projecting what they find attractive onto men.

In fairness, some men make the reciprocal mistake as well. Since men are into looks, pleasant personality, and trustworthy character, and pretty much nothing else, some of us tend, when young, to project that onto women. “I’m not bad looking, I’m a nice guy, I’m decent and honest and treat women well…. why won’t girls talk to me?”

When I was young, I made this mistake in spades, and I know I’m not the only one. I knew I was a decent guy on the inside, with a lot to offer. And physically, I had the good fortune to be tall, and (i’ve often been told) I have a handsome face as well. So…. quoth I: What’s wrong? Why aren’t the girls interested? The only thing I could think of, was: “It must be my body!” Accordingly I spent years absolutely torturing myself in the weight room, pumping iron endlessly… with ZERO romantic results.

Later in life, when wrinkles and gray hair and fat crept on (the fat being due to exercise limiting injury, not slacking off, I hasten to add)….. but the *MONEY* finally started to roll in…and I had a high status job that women respected… THEN…. suddenly…women wanted me, and marriage became easy. How about that?

PS…. I wonder if the entire feminist “career woman” project, is ultimately nothing more than a catastrophically misguided attempt to increase their SMV/MMV — while the tragic truth is that status has no bearing on a man’s attraction for a woman, so it’s all a waste!

Single mothers bring the very wellfare state they depend on closer to the brink of colapse with every illegitimate child they pop out, who will most likely in turn create more bastards and be more likely to commit crimes thus placing an ever increasing strain on the state’s purse stings.

All forms of collectivism are not self-sustaining. The most virulent form right now is feminism. It relies on a huge state for whom the limiting resource is a bunch of beta suckers who make up the tax base. Without them, there can be no wellfare state. The system being what it is things will collapse soon enough and then it will be everyone for themselves. No more suckling at the government’s saggy dried up teet.

Game 2.0 (whatever milk-sop bullshit that that is) could very well be a gateway to Game 1.0 for men. And game (IMO) is a gateway to the manosphere, once you understand and recognise hypergamy, you will never see women in the same way again – it is a pedestal killer, a red-pill starter dose.

Once they start poking around the web for game 2.0, that the pastor told their wife was a ‘good-thing’, who knows what links they will come across and read?

And yeah, as usual the manginas etc don’t understand. Game is self correcting, if a horny guy tries a 2.0 technique and it fails, he tells everybody and it gets dumped. They’re trying to hijack something that can’t be hijacked, and instead they’re advertising Game to betas.

This angry game guru lives next to the beach, in a penthouse with a batcave in marseilles, who bones his cleaning lady after a good hoovering …. get your facts straight …

Most gamers are pretty successful, & would probably treat your sister to more masculinity then most guys ever will, after a good boffing …

All women should get a good boffing once in her lifetime … 5 minutes of alpha worth 10 years of child support & alimony & in that 5 minutes he gets laid to boot ….

Game saves men, literally, it stops men from acting like empath & Rooinek

At least we can count on guys like empath & Rooinek to play captain save a hoe, so men with brain cells everywhere can avoid crazy attention whoring chicks thnx to captain save a hoe, fundamentalists like the anti-gamers